The Instigator
Merda
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
headphonegut
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points

The number 4 is Even

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Merda
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,739 times Debate No: 16737
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (6)

 

Merda

Con

I will be arguing for the negation of the resolution, namely that the sentence "The number 4 is even." is false. My opponent will argue for the affirmative of the resolution or that the above sentence is true.

Round 1: Acceptance, clarifications, definitions
Rounds 2-3: Arguments and rebuttals
Round 4: Closing arguments

Definitions

The definitions that are provided must be agreed to before the debate begins.

Number 4: The natural number following 3 and preceding 5.

Even: an integer that is "evenly divisible" by 2, i.e., divisible by 2 without remainder.

Good luck to whomever accept this debate.
headphonegut

Pro

Hello and thank you for this debate

I do not accept you definition of "even" I propose the following
Even: a number that is a multiple of two and is divisible by 2

I will be arguing that

the number 4 is even
Debate Round No. 1
Merda

Con

If my opponent read what I wrote in R1, the definitions that I provided must be agreed upon before the debate begins. Nevertheless I will allow my opponent's definitions change of the word 'even' to mean: a number that is a multiple of two and is divisible by 2. Now on to my argument.

From hereon, I will refer to the sentence '4 is even.' as 4=E.

P1: The sentence, 4=E should be read as making a straightforward claim about the nature of the number 4.

P2: If the sentence 4=E is true and should be read as making a straightforward claim, there must exist objects of which the sentence is describing.(ex. For the above sentence to be true, the number 4 must exist.

C1: If 4=E is true then there must exist mathematical objects.---From P1 and P2

P3: If mathematical objects exist, then they are non-spatiotemporal objects.(ex. If the number 4 exists, it is an abstract object as opposed to a physical or mental object.)

P4: Abstract objects do not exist.

C2: There are no such things as mathematical objects.---From P3 and P4

C3: The sentence 4=E is not true for the same reason that the sentence, 'Santa has blue eyes.'is not true.---From C1 and C2

I look forward to my opponent's response.




headphonegut

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate.

First off I would like to address my opponents faulty syllogism mainly his 2nd premise that there must exist objects which the sentence is describing this is a straight toward claim about the nature of a sentence that objects must exist for the sentence to be true that there no exceptions about the nature of a sentence so there must always exist objects which the sentence is describing otherwise The sentence is not true. So the sentence blue is pretty is not truewhile some might think it is and others might think blue is not pretty because of the nature of the sentence and what it claims that blue a frequency of light is pretty according to my opponent the subjective thoughts of everybody is wrong thoughts that blue is pretty are incorrect however I say that blue is pretty is correct that I do BELIEVE that blue is pretty according to me therefore his conclusions fail.

Now his conclusion states their must be mathematical objects for 4=even to be true however this is false no mathematical objects NEED to exist for four is even to be true. Consider the word IS the word is make the equation that four is even or blue is pretty while people might not believe these statements to be true however they do not need to I believe that blue is pretty and that 4 is even is true however I have more belief to say that four is even because of mathematical evidence like 2*2=4 or 4/2=2 making it a fact and thus making me believe it to be true.

My opponent then makes a claim that average objects do not exist without any logic or evidence or reasoning as to why abstract objects are non existent like blue its absract we see it everyday am I to believe that blue is not blue simply because we cannot hold it or taste it or smell it am I to believe that people do not have a brain simply because I cannot see it. Am I to believe that the hyperbolic plain doesn't exist because I cannot see it or that gravity is not holding me down it's there it keeps the planets in orbit I cannot hold gravity or see gravity nor smell it or taste it when having sex does gravity not keep me on top of her are you claiming that gravity does not exist it is an abstract object without gravity we could not be able to have comfortable sex. We know that air exsists because we see the trees moving we know that gravity exists because it keeps the planets and us in orbit

And for the record Santa can have blue eyes blue is an adjective describing the eyes of Santa which are the object

4 is even is true because engineers or physicists would not be able to create dams or calculate the rate at what dare devil would have to go to jump the grand canyon. We know that 4 is even is true because it indicates a sort of law about the number 4 if 4 is even then it is not odd or a prime number it can be divided by two and is a multiple of two if I was a midget that was 4 feet tall that lived in different world where people could only bend halfway and jump two feet and a tsunami was coming and I had to duck under a wall with an opening that was two feet high then jump on to higher ground that was two feet high as well this would all be possible since 4=even is true

I await my opponents response And once more thank you for this debate
Debate Round No. 2
Merda

Con

I just finished reading my opponent's argument and am ready to respond. My opponent first attacks my second premise that if we are making a straightforward claim about an object, for that claim to be true, the object in question must actually exist. My opponent writes in response:

"So the sentence blue is pretty is not truewhile some might think it is and others might think blue is not pretty because of the nature of the sentence and what it claims that blue a frequency of light is pretty according to my opponent the subjective thoughts of everybody is wrong thoughts that blue is pretty are incorrect however I say that blue is pretty is correct that I do BELIEVE that blue is pretty according to me therefore his conclusions fail."

This entire line of reasoning I believe stems from a lack of knowledge as to what constitutes a true sentence. To see what makes a sentence true though we should clear up what 'truth' is. I think it can best be defined as: Consistent with fact or reality[1], being in accordance with the actual state or conditions;conforming to reality or fact; not false[2], or being in accordance with the actual state of affairs[3]. All of these definitions take the existence of the truth claim in question as needing to exist in reality or actuality in order to even be considered as being truth.
Moving on to my opponent's analogy about the color blue and his argument that for me to claim that the sentence "4 is even." is not true is the same as me arguing that the sentence "Blue is pretty." is not true. However, my opponent's example of whether blue can be pretty is radically different from whether the number 4 is even. The color blue does actually exist. It exists as "the perception of which is evoked by light having a spectrum dominated by energy with a wavelength of roughly 440–490 nm."[4] The existence of the colour blue is not being called into question. It exists objectively. My opponent then writes:

"My opponent then makes a claim that average objects do not exist without any logic or evidence or reasoning as to why abstract objects are non existent like blue its absract we see it everyday am I to believe that blue is not blue simply because we cannot hold it or taste it or smell it am I to believe that people do not have a brain simply because I cannot see it."

Never did I claim that "average" objects do not exist, nor did I claim that the color blue does not exist. The color blue is not an abstract concept, but a specific perception evoked by a specific wavelength of light. So my opponent's analogy does not apply to the case of abstract objects not existing. And as to logic or reasoning as to why abstract objects do not exist in reality or actuality, we must simply look to the definition of an 'abstract' object. It is defined as: "thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, oractual instances"[5]. As in, an abstract idea or thing does not exist in reality or actuality. So, it follows from the fact that a sentence regarding a truth claim regarding a non-existant concept cannot be true or false in that truth is intrinsically connected to reality. Since abstract objects do not exist in reality, any sentence making a definitive statement about them would be false.

My opponent has not brought sound enough arguments against my premises and conclusions to warrant a Pro vote. As such I urge a Con vote.

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://dictionary.reference.com...
headphonegut

Pro

to respond to my opponent calling me a moron or ignorant buffoon.The sentence 4 is even is consistent with fact and reality nice try though.

moving on to my opponents argument about why my analogy fails but in his argument he concedes his entire case. He says the color blue exists objectively so it wouldn't matter if we were here to see the color blue it would still exist it simply wouldn't have a label much like that the number four exists 4/2 is still two 2*2 still would equal four

"Never did I claim that "average" objects do not exist, nor did I claim that the color blue does not exist. The color blue is not an abstract concept, but a specific perception evoked by a specific wavelength of light. So my opponent's analogy does not apply to the case of abstract objects not existing. And as to logic or reasoning as to why abstract objects do not exist in reality or actuality, we must simply look to the definition of an 'abstract' object. It is defined as: "thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, oractual instances"[5]. As in, an abstract idea or thing does not exist in reality or actuality. So, it follows from the fact that a sentence regarding a truth claim regarding a non-existant concept cannot be true or false in that truth is intrinsically connected to reality. Since abstract objects do not exist in reality, any sentence making a definitive statement about them would be false."

he says we 'simply look to definition of abstract' the definition of a word proves the existence of the concept bad argument according to my opponent Minotaur's exist would be considered true since the definition of minotaur is half man half bull then he must exist. nice try and if we were to accept this I would automatically win because of the definition of 'even'. And furthermore you're claiming the number four does not exist in reality but I can see the number four I think that's empirical evidence I can see a tumor on an MRI i think that's empirical evidence that a tumor exists my opponent has not been arguing that the number four is not even he has been trying to argue the number four is not existent we need empirical evidence mostly for things that we can't see like gravity we prove gravity by testing newtons theory usually the second one Fnet=ma or the sum of all for forces acting on an object is equal to the mass times the acceleration we apply this law and we now gravity exists because it never fails . Claiming that the number four is even is false that's huge burden on you you're saying all numbers that are even are false.

my opponent has not made any arguments as too why the number four is not even he has made an argument as too why the number four does not exist however in order to debate this resolution it assumes that the number four does exist in order to debate it's nature and characteristics.

my opponent has not held his burden nor has he made any arguments .
thank you cordially, HPG
Debate Round No. 3
Merda

Con

My opponent begins by claiming that I called him a "moron or ignorant buffoon". I assure readers that absolutely nowhere in my case did I resort to abusive ad hominem attacks. My opponent then goes on to again, completely misunderstand my argument. He writes specifically:

"He says the color blue exists objectively so it wouldn't matter if we were here to see the color blue it would still exist it simply wouldn't have a label much like that the number four exists 4/2 is still two 2*2 still would equal four"

Firstly, the very existence of the color blue directly depends on the perception evoked by light of a certain wavelength. My chair is blue, not because blue exists as an objective quality regardless of human perception, but because I perceive the specific wavelength of light in a specific way. So, the word 'blue' is a descriptive word, describing the perception of light at a specific wavelength.

"he says we 'simply look to definition of abstract' the definition of a word proves the existence of the concept bad argument according to my opponent Minotaur's exist would be considered true since the definition of minotaur is half man half bull then he must exist."

Again, a complete misrepresentation of my argument. Yes, the definition of the word 'abstract' is why I believe 'abstract' concepts do not exist in reality or actuality. The definition's purpose is to describe objects that do not actually exist. And as to my opponent's argument that minotaur's exist because of the definition, I don't really see where he's going. I believe he might be trying to show that a definition does not prove existence. However this is a very different case then whether or not something being 'abstract' means it does not exist. The word 'abstract' is used as an adjective to describe objects or concepts that do not exist in reality or actuality. The fact that not everything we think of exists is self-evidence and itself proves the definition of 'abstract' concepts. A minotaur though is a noun. As such, if one is to be justified in believing that it exists, one needs more than definitional evidence. This fact does not take away from the fact that abstract objects do not exist though. The analogy is fallacious. It's like comparing apples to oranges. My opponent then writes:

"my opponent has not made any arguments as too why the number four is not even he has made an argument as too why the number four does not exist however in order to debate this resolution it assumes that the number four does exist in order to debate it's nature and characteristics."

These claims are actually demonstratably false. My opponent makes two claims here, both of which are just plain not true. His first claim is that in this debate, we are assuming the existenc of the number four. We can simply look at both my opponent's and my R1 to see if either of us mentioned whether four would be assumed to exist. A quick look shows that neither of us ever even mentioned the existence of the number four.

My opponent's second claim is that this debate is on the "nature and characteristics" of the number four. Again, this claim is just not true. In my R1 I wrote what I would be arguing. I wrote specifically: "I will be arguing for the negation of the resolution, namely that the sentence "The number 4 is even." is false. My opponent will argue for the affirmative of the resolution or that the above sentence is true.". It has been very clear from the moment this debate started that I would be arguing over the truth value of the sentence "The number 4 is even.". My opponent knows this and so is trying to confuse the readers of this debate.

Now on to how voters should vote after the conclusion of this debate.

Conduct: Con
My opponent violated really the only rule that I made for this debate which was that the definitions I provide must be agreed to before we begin the debate. I wrote specifically: "The definitions that are provided must be agreed to before the debate begins." My opponent then wrote in his R1, "I do not accept you definition of "even" I propose the following...". Even as this point did not come out as a point of disagreement, my opponent violated the only rule I laid out.

Sources: Con
Easy vote. I was the only one who provided any sources. Their validity in regards to this debate was also never brought up as a point of contention.

Spelling/grammar: Con
My opponent has made numerous grammatical errors over the course of this debate. I will list only a few.

"Hello and thank you for this debate"-- There should be a period at the end of the sentence.

"I do not accept you definition of "even" I propose the following"-- There should be a comma after the word 'even' and a colon should have been provided after the word 'following' to introduce the definition.

"I await my opponents response And once more thank you for this debate"-- There should be a period at the end of the sentence. Also, there is no need for the capitalization of the word 'and'.

"thank you cordially, HPG"-- Again, no period at the end of the sentence and no capitalization of the word 'thank'.

Arguments: Con
Pro was unable to find fault with my premises or their logical conclusions.He brought an argument against my P2 which I showed to be fallacious in that a straightforward claim is a claim describing the reality of a situation or object and as such, the situation or object in question must exist to be considered as part of 'reality'.

Pro also brought an analogy in an attempt to show that if the sentence "4 is even." is not true then the sentence "Blus is pretty." is not true. However I showed this attempt to be fallacious in that the color blue exists as an objective perception, evoked by a specific wavelength of light.

Pro then brought the claim that in this debate we were assuming the existence of the number four and so my entire argument from mathematical fictionalism was moot. However, if one looks at both of our R1's, one will see that not only was the number four's existence never brought up as being assumed, but I explicitly wrote that I would be arguing the truth-value of the sentence "4 is even'.

Vote 7 points to Con.
headphonegut

Pro

Analysis of debate:

My opponent has not upheld his burden the resolution 4 is even. the word "is" is making a descriptive claim. 4 is even. we are to assume the the number four exists and debate on it's nature/characteristics (if it is indeed even). Instead my opponent has debated on the existence of the umber four.

My opponent has drop my awesome midget analogy.

in his last rebuttal of blue my opponent says "I perceive the specific wavelength of light in a specific way." by the same token I perceive the number 4 therefore it must be real.

he says that abstract is and adjective and minatory is not so the objection is it has to be an adjective?

and My opponent says I violated his only rule but he conceded to it and it was never a major issue in this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
@Merda, No, you are not justified in jumping out of the context of the debate to make what is essentially a semantic argument. The clear meaning of the resolution was, "In the context of mathematics, the number 4 is even." Pro wins arguments without saying a word, because the resolution is confirmed by common knowledge. No references are required.

This is what inspired Shakespiere's "First, let's kill all the lawyers."
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
This entire thing should have been easily torn apart. When the definition of "truth" was presented, the first option was "Consistent with fact or reality" (the the second option also had the "fact or reality" bit). So in order to be true, we only need meet fact OR reality. So something can be true without being present in reality.

Other really bad inconsistencies, claiming that "4" is not real (and so not capable of being true), while using "440-490" as a defense. You can't logically claim that numbers are not real, and so false, then use numbers in your defense.

We can also go into the definition of "exist" and find that it also takes advantage of the word "or" saying that, "Have objective reality or being."
Posted by Merda 5 years ago
Merda
I was arguing over the truth value of the sentence. So if I was debating, "Naruto has yellow hair." I would be justified in arguing that the sentence is false even though Naruto does have yellow hair within the context of the manga. I was not arguing within the system of mathematics but more along the lines of philosophy of language.

Also Grape, your the first one to vote straight 7. You win!
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Mathematics is an axiomatic system. The resolution is asserted within that system, so it's truth is determined accordingly. This is within ordinary common knowledge. Con's arguments used definitions that do not apply. Pro loses conduct for accepting the debate and rejecting the definitions given as premises.

Consider the resolution, "Naruto can beat Batman." Try this: "Neither Naruto nor Batman are real. Therefore the assertion that one can beat the other is meaningless, and the Pro position fails." No, the premise of the debate is that it is set in a fantasy world where both characters exist and have the characteristics provided by their fictional biographical data. Posing a mathematical problem implies that one is inthe system of mathematics, where abstract objects exist and have wel-defined properties. You cannot pose a problem in a "world" and then claim the world does not exist.
Posted by headphonegut 5 years ago
headphonegut
That assertion cannot be proven to a certainty
Posted by Merda 5 years ago
Merda
@Reddawn's vote
Saying that numbers are abstract and also exist in the mind is contradictory. To be abstract means to not exist period. Santa Claus is an abstract character in that he does not exist in reality or actuality.
Posted by Merda 5 years ago
Merda
True.
Posted by headphonegut 5 years ago
headphonegut
brown noser :p
Posted by Merda 5 years ago
Merda
You guys should do some debates so you can vote for me.
Posted by headphonegut 5 years ago
headphonegut
bleh bleh
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
MerdaheadphonegutTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con completely failed in his argument, but what was worse was Pro's failure to catch the obvious. Most logic classes start with teaching logic with numbers, then move to statements. Will go over more in the comments.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
MerdaheadphonegutTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Mathematics is an axiomatic system. The resolution is asserted within that system, so it's truth is determined accordingly. This is within ordinary common knowledge. Con's arguments used definitions that do not apply. Pro loses conduct for accepting the debate and rejecting the definitions given as premises.
Vote Placed by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
MerdaheadphonegutTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Crushing victory for Con. Pro used no sources (losing sources), wrote incoherent and ungrammatical sentences (losing spelling and grammar). Pro did violate to only rule and be falsely accused Con of calling him a buffoon (losing conduct). For the entire debate Pro derps around and does not understand the Con argument at all. He never even actually presents an affirmative argument that the number 4 is even. Arguments clearly go to Con. Well played.
Vote Placed by RedDawnJensen 5 years ago
RedDawnJensen
MerdaheadphonegutTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Abstract objects exist may be true, but numbers exist in that they describe something. Im not any big philosopher or mathemetician, but numbers are abstract in the sense that they are pure theory- they exist in the mind, and are used to describe and theorize. To use your theory, Merda, for this purpose would suggest that mathematical proofs and indeed mathematics in itself would be moot.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
MerdaheadphonegutTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used no sources, but his arguments flowed with me better.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
MerdaheadphonegutTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Clever argument from Tim who easily handled Pro's objections. HPG should have attacked the foundations by which a proposition can be asserted to be true and what it means to exist. Strong argument from Tim, novel topic and clear presentation. 5:2