The Instigator
Occisionis
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ZBestDebater
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Two plus two equals five

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
ZBestDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2015 Category: Arts
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 725 times Debate No: 77733
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Occisionis

Pro

2.4 rounded down is 2| 4.8 rounded up is 5
Now that you understand this, read the equation.

Here is the equation: 2.4 2.4=4.8 Or 2 2=5

Oh and I have a PhD so I know what I'm talking about.
ZBestDebater

Con

2+2=4. That is correct. 2+2=5 is incorrect, because you're rounding another number to 2. for example, 2.4 is rounded to 2, and if you multiply 2.4 by 2, then you get 4.8, which is rounded to 5. now, you're wrong, because this is being rounded. 2+2 does not equal 5, 5 is simply a close number to the correct one, that's what a rounded number is. something close to the correct number, an estimate. So no, 2+2 does not equal 5. it is close to 5, but it doesn't equal 5.
Debate Round No. 1
Occisionis

Pro

Many mathematicians use what I use, for example; pi is mostly used rounded in equations. 2+2=4 is correct and 2+2=5 is correct too. I have a PhD so I know what in talking about.
ZBestDebater

Con

First of all, i have to ask you to stop repeating the fact that you have a PhD all over your profile. It's on everything you write. We get it, you have a PhD, but that doesn't mean you're right. it doesn't prove anything in a argument. now, 2+2=4 is correct. 2+2=5 is not correct, see, you're ROUNDING. When you round, you're taking a number and you're looking at the closest number between a scale of 1-10. for example, you can round 29 to 30. or 23 to 20. see, if i add 23+29, does it equal 59? No. it equals 52. 2.4 + 2.4= 4.8, but that doesn't mean tht 2+2=5. When you round, you are making it easier to add by making a number either 0 or 10. but when you round, you don't get an exact number, meaning it's not correct. so no, 2+2=4. Not 5.
Debate Round No. 2
Occisionis

Pro

Mathematically speaking with a PhD by my calculations and research I have come up with this equation.

4W22;9/2X00;(4W22;92)(4-9/2)" since 4W22;92<0
ZBestDebater

Con

Wow. Okay. Look, I will prove that 2+2=5 is incorrect by saying the following:

If you have 2 apples in one hand, and 2 in the other, how many apples do you have? If you got 5, vote for PRO. If you got 4, vote for me.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by psyrus 1 year ago
psyrus
This is funny. Waving a PhD around to prove your right. Do you get a PhD to tell people your "smart" or to get educated? unlikely the latter in this case.
Posted by Occisionis 1 year ago
Occisionis
well for some reason the equation comes out all wrong.

4 W22; 9 / 2 X00; ( 4 W22; 9 2) ( 4 - 9 / 2 ) " since 4 W22; 9 2
Posted by Occisionis 1 year ago
Occisionis
4W22;9/2X00;(4W22;92) (4-9/2)" since 4W22;92
Posted by Occisionis 1 year ago
Occisionis
4W22;9/2X00;(4W22;92)(4-9/2)" since 4W22;92
Posted by mostlogical 1 year ago
mostlogical
2 = 2.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...

But 2 can equal any other number you choose, e.g. 14 equals 2 on a clock so 14 + 2 = 16 or 4.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Teaparty1 1 year ago
Teaparty1
OccisionisZBestDebaterTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- Pro showed that he was not taking the debate seriously, like in round three when he wrote a bogus mathematical expression. Arguments- Pro had a flawed case involving rounding numbers. Con pointed out the flaws in Pro's logic and presented his own logical cases as to why 2+2=4. I've got 4 apples.
Vote Placed by Enji 1 year ago
Enji
OccisionisZBestDebaterTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's appeal to authority fails. If he had argued significant figures, maybe he would have gotten further; Con correctly points out that Pro's "argument" relies on rounding, which is inaccurate. Arguments to Con.