Two can be one
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Kinesis
Voting Style:  Open  Point System:  7 Point  
Started:  11/21/2012  Category:  Philosophy  
Updated:  3 years ago  Status:  Post Voting Period  
Viewed:  758 times  Debate No:  27404 
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)
Can you actually prove to me that two can't be one? Waiting for you to accept the challenge. I believe that two can become one with so many proves........
Go ahead then. 

Champion123 forfeited this round.
Yeah thought so. 

I'm sorry for not making it to round 2. This is a question for you will you ever wish to be dependent on others? No! That is why every one want to be independent even countries. The same theory goes between one ( 1) and two ( 2 ). 1 is independent. It's the foundation of every other number that exist. If one is removed from 100, then 100 can't exist. 1 is the founder of all numbers. Since 2 is so proud, then i will remove my 1. 2 1= 1. You see i still have my 1 back. That mean two can actually be one because it has no freedom of its own.
I'm going to confess, I don't really understand Pro's argument but I'm going to do my best to interpret it. Pro claims that one is the 'founder' of all numbers and that while 1 is an independent entity all the other numbers are contingent on 1. Thus, the number 2 is merely two 1s, and the number 100 is made up of 1s such that it couldn't exist without 1s. Here is the flaw in Pro's argument. While 2 is made up of 1s, and 100 is made up of 1s, that's only because we are conceptualising it in terms of 1s. We could just as easily think of '2' as four halves, and 1 as two halves. Consider: "Since 2 is so proud, then i will remove my 1. 2 1= 1. You see i still have my 1 back." changed to "Since 1 is so proud, then i will remove my 1/2. 1 1/2= 1/2. You see i still have my 1/2 back." So therefore, whatever number is dependent on another number depends one how you frame the problem. You could think of 2 as 2x1, or 2 as 4x1/2, or 2 as 100/50 or 2 as 1x2. It's relative. Therefore, 1 is not the foundation of all the other numbers and Pro's claims are false. 

From what you have said, it's obvious that you are being ambiguous which means even the audience can't understand what you are saying. Look, mathematically 11/2 can't be 1/2 just as you said. Check your solvings and prove yourself wrong and that means you have not break down my evidence . To take you to another perspective of how two can be one, them listen. From the day that a man take a lady to the alter, the two becomes one. What so ever belongs to the man belongs to the woman as well. Even their body is united to be one as well as their thought that is why they are legalise to sleep together. Ask your dad and he will tell you that indeed your mum and him have been bounded together to be one, ask your mum as well. If they tells you that they are two then prove me wrong.
I don't think a halfbaked analogy with marriage really helps you here. Two becomes one in a metaphorical sense, in that two people pledge themselves to each other until they die. They don't become one in a way that can be compared to the mathematical union of 2 and 1. That isn't what you seemed to be arguing in the second round. Here's what I would have argued: Mathematical proof that 2 = 1. 1: Step 1: Let a = b. Step 2: Then a^2 = ab Step 3: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab Step 4: 2a^2 = a^2 + ab Step 5: 2a^2  2ab = a^2 + ab 2ab Step 6: 2a^2  2ab = a^2  ab Step 7: This can be written as 2(a^2  ab) = 1(a^2  ab) Step 8: and cancelling the (a^2  ab) from both sides gives 1=2. Figure out the flaw without looking online. :) 
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 3 years ago
Champion123  Kinesis  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  0  5 
Reasons for voting decision: I honestly don't fully understand Pro's argument. If it's what Con took it to mean  1 is the base number on which all other numbers are dependent  then Con disproved this by showing Pro's logic is arbitrary. Many numbers could conceivably be this base number and nothing changes but our perspective. Pro's marriage analogy is both odd and a last round addition and thus irrelevant. Con disproved Pro's case and did much of the work for him in making it palatable to the audience, so arguments to Con. Conduct for the forfeit and Grammar for the confusing nature of Pro's case.
LOL