yes 1+1=3
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Lexus
Voting Style:  Open  Point System:  7 Point  
Started:  10/25/2015  Category:  Politics  
Updated:  12 months ago  Status:  Post Voting Period  
Viewed:  261 times  Debate No:  81523 
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)
1+1=11
=110 =101 =lol =lol0 =lool o+o=1 =1+(0+0)+1 =!+Pi/sin(8)+f(00) =1+1+1 =3 is real i have a phsd in matheatics and aslo inmanths. You acannot porve me wrong becuase I show to Mr. Mount and he is math teacher he laughe at me which menas thatn ia m actually correct. mr mount is good teach he let us play soccert so he must be write, i was called genius thins yoear in 6th grade so i am reight how about that how can u evenr ebut my logacly ritien points sorry about my gramma, i am texting and rick gave me to use so yesaha. also i reallt like crystal <3 Thank you pro. I will provide a reason that 1 + 1 = 2 in this round as well as refute your points. In order to start defining 1+1=2, we need some basis of what we are talking about; we need some things that show us what addition means, what equalling means, etc. The Peano Postulates Peano was a mathematician that allows us to talk about math through his postulates (that are often called axioms now); it is important when defining new ways of ordering numbers to speak the same language, so he gave us the language to speak. The smallest set N which satisfies the following postulates is indistinguishable from, and can be taken to be, the natural numbers: Postulate 1. 1 is in N Postulate 2. If x is in N, then it's successor (number after) x' is in N Postulate 3. There is no x in N such that x' = 1 Postulate 4. If y in N isn't 1, then there is a x in N such that x' = y Postulate 5. If x and y are in N and x' = y', then x = y. Postulate 6. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication (x in S ==> x' in S) holds, then S = N Further, Peano gave us some ways to more easily grasp the concept of addition. Def: Let a and b be in N. 1. If b = 1, then define a + b = a' (using P1 and P2). 2. If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N (using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'. We can restate this as: Def: 1. a + 1 = a', and 2. a + b' = (a + b)' Just as a matter of notation, we write 1' = 2, 2' = 3, 3' = 4, etc. Now, onto the actual proof of 1 + 1 = 2: Let a = 1 and b = 1 a + b = a + a a + a = a' a' = 1' 1' = 2 Therefore, 1 + 1 = 2. QED. Now, let's examine my opponent's proof. 1+1=11 [This breaks Peano's postulates, it must be wrong] 110=101 [Not possible with P5 of Peano] 101=lol [Possible with some sorts of variables] lol=lool [Therefore l^2 * o^2 = 101] o+o=1 [1/2 = .5, therefore o=.5] [This means in the above answer, l must necessarily be around 10.4 due to rounding] 1+(0+0)+1=1+(pi)/(sin(8)) + f(00) [Or, 1+1 = 1+ pi/sin(8) [f(00) has no definition]. 1+1 = 1+~3.18 = ~4.18] ~4.18 = 1+1+1 [This isn't true; 1`` = 3 necessarily] ~4.18 = 3 So, we can see that there are multiple lines that are broken mathematically. My opponent's proof just doesn't hold up. 

u try to be smart by say postilats but i alredy told u mr.mount is my maths tehcer ansd he is prooff
I'm being smart by saying postulates because that's the only way to prove something is so. Hitler said that the Jews were inferior and he taught millions to believe this  does this mean that the fact remains uncountered and absolutely true? Maybe ... but just because Hitler said it does not mean it is true. Further, just because your math teacher said 1+1=3 does not necessarily mean it is. 

but peano soun like (hehehehehehd0 peni!s
aslo htter say jews ar iferer becuse it is not ture, becyuase his math teacher did not say that jews basd if u think Hitlr was rong why is he ur profiled pic??/? i had defeted u in all ways fooolinsh youn 3 yurold
Vote con. 
Post a Comment
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
11=2=0(consciousness)
Report this Comment
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sarai.K82 12 months ago
1234abcdjeetdunnee  Lexus  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 am fairly simple, so I thought 1+1 = 2 before the debate. Pro's arguments did not persuade me otherwise. I might have called conduct tied, but for Pro's comment, " ... fooolinsh youn 3 yurold." Pro does not follow traditional English language spelling and grammar rules while Con does. Con's arguments were more persuasive to me. I didn't notice any citations to authority by Con and I don't know enough about Pro's math teacher to evaluate the reliability of that source, so I put that issue as tied.