All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

# One plus one does not always equal two

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
mongeese
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 5/2/2009 Category: Education Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 23,944 times Debate No: 8072
Debate Rounds (4)

 Pro I affirm the resolution: "One plus one does not always equal two." To clarify, the resolution simply means that 1+1=2 does not always happen. Thus, I must prove one instance where one plus one does not equal two. I will not post an argument this round, I shall allow my opponent to accept this debate and question me if I have confused him/her. Thank youReport this Argument Con Thank you for starting this debate. For one thing, I know that you are anticipating for me to fall into a trap. I am going to try to disarm your trap. You're probably going to use piles of sand, or something along those lines. However, the value of "one" plus the value of "one" when added together properly will ALWAYS be equal to the value of "two". Let's take the piles of sand incident. You have one unit of sand poured onto another pile of sand. You end up with two units of sand. "Pile of sand" is not a unit at all. "Gram" and "pound" are units. Alright, go ahead.Report this Argument Pro studentathletechristian8 forfeited this round. Con All arguments extended... One plus one equals two, by the addition property of equality. http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you for your time, I guess...Report this Argument Pro I thank such a worthy opponent for accepting this debate. As I have stated before, the only thing I must prove is one instance where one plus one is not necessarily two. Notice that nothing involving mathematics was clearly mentioned. By the way, I did not mean for this to be a one-sided debate. I looked for an opponent that could but up an intriguing argument, and I believe I have found one. You have a good idea about the sand, but I bet I can prove at least one instance where in fact one plus one is not necessarily two: 1 ball of clay + 1 ball of clay= 1 ball of clay (because they would be mixed together and form only one big ball) 1 pair of shoes + 1 pair of shoes= 4 shoes (notice that because we are not referring directly to math, the equation can be written in this notation) these are both instances where technically one plus one of something is not necessarily two, and that is all I have needed to proveReport this Argument Con Thank you for responding this time. "1 ball of clay + 1 ball of clay= 1 ball of clay (because they would be mixed together and form only one big ball)" This is exactly like the sand thing. You took one unit of clay, shaped in a sphere, plus one unit of clay, shaped in a sphere, to get two units of clay, shaped in a sphere. This is, in other words, one plus one equals two. You conceded that with the sand. "1 pair of shoes + 1 pair of shoes= 4 shoes (notice that because we are not referring directly to math, the equation can be written in this notation)" You're trying to change the units in the middle of the equation. That should be reworded as, "One pair of shoes plus one pair of shoes is two pairs of shoes," or, "Two shoes plus two shoes is four shoes." This is not just an addition problem. You are also dividing the pairs of shoes into individual shoes, which violates the original resolution. Upon translation, in this situation, one plus one is still resulting in two, so as long as it can be translated this way, it is a situation that goes against the resolution. Any math teacher would vomit upon your "math". Thank you for your patience.Report this Argument Pro dude I'm three grades higher in math than my peers lol. I do not think my math could technically be "vomited" on, only kidding of course. The ball of clay scenario is different from the sand scenario in a way. When you mix one ball of clay with one ball of clay, you end up with one ball of clay, because they are able to mix together. It does not matter if it is two "units" of clay that make up the last result, because technically the last result is only one ball, disproving your theory. Now with the trickiness of the shoes. Nowhere in the resolution or in any of our arguments did we say that this is strictly on a mathemetical sublevel. Inverting the words with pairs and individual shoes would henceforth be permissible because once again, technically, they do not break any rules we have established. one pair of shoes plus one pair of shoes is four shoes. See how I mixed the wording? I was able to allow the problem of one plus one to not equal two, and that is all I needed. I intended this debate to be more abstract and perceptive. However, with school almost ending and finals coming, I believe my opponent and I would present better arguments at the end of school. I hope to debate you on other topics in the future. ThanksReport this Argument Con The ball of clay scenario is different from the sand scenario in a way. When you mix one ball of clay with one ball of clay, you end up with one ball of clay, because they are able to mix together. It does not matter if it is two 'units' of clay that make up the last result, because technically the last result is only one ball, disproving your theory." Actually, this is no different than the conceded "pile of sand" clause, because the sand is a pile plus a pile making a larger pile, which is in fact an entirely different unit. "Now with the trickiness of the shoes. Nowhere in the resolution or in any of our arguments did we say that this is strictly on a mathematical sublevel. Inverting the words with pairs and individual shoes would henceforth be permissible because once again, technically, they do not break any rules we have established. one pair of shoes plus one pair of shoes is four shoes. See how I mixed the wording? I was able to allow the problem of one plus one to not equal two, and that is all I needed." You are trying to say that 1(2) + 1(2) = 4, which is by all means not 1 + 1 = 2. In this situation, 1(2) + 1(2) = 2(2), which opposes the resolution, because it was, in fact, a situation in which one plus one did equal two. You could also say that it was 2 + 2 = 4, but that really doesn't help anyone. Units are important in math. When you use the words "plus" and "equal", you are automatically using mathematics, because: Plus - with the addition of (http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]) Addition - the operation of combining numbers so as to obtain an equivalent simple quantity (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Mathematical statement. Equal - an equal quantity (http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]) Quantity - the subject of a mathematical operation (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Mathematical statement. Thus, this debate is about mathematics. "I intended this debate to be more abstract and perceptive. However, with school almost ending and finals coming, I believe my opponent and I would present better arguments at the end of school. I hope to debate you on other topics in the future. Thanks" Actually, I'd probably present the same arguments. Anyways, thanks for the debate.Report this Argument
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
Studentathlete should have used the rounding argument.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
And this debate will become some semantics mess.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
It is impossible to make the debate "fair." Whichever way the rules go, so goes the winner, all but regardless of skill :).
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
Ragnar, to make this debate fair, we must ensure that
1a+1a=1b is irrelevant
1a+1a=1a is relevant.
1a+1b=1a+1b is irrelevant.
Posted by Nail_Bat 8 years ago
If all of the symbols take on their most common mathematical meaning, then 1+1 always equals 2. PRO should win this debate easily, though, because there are a number of contexts in which this isn't true, and he never specified that this debate is limited to the scope of mathematics.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Those are non-additive phenomena, Wjm, so they can't be considered incidents of 1+1.

What can be considered incidents of 1+1 not equalling 2, are such things as I described here:

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
It's a trap:
1 pile of sand + 1 pile of sand = 1 pile of sand
1 square + 1 circle = 1 square + 1 circle

No one is going to accept this. They know it's a trap. It is very rude to expect people to agree to lose a debate.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
This isn't worth debating to find out what silly trick is proposed. 1+1=2 is a purely mathematical abstraction that is true as defined in the world of mathematics. Whether or not it applies to a particular situation in the real world has nothing to do with the math, it has to do with the art of applying math.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.