The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Two Plus Two Equals Four

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,318 times Debate No: 49013
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




Full resolution: "In elementary level arithmetic, two plus two equals four (2+2=4)."

In honor of the sarcastic one-sided resolution everyone so adores to talk about, I stand to resolve that mathematically, two plus two equals four. Round one is for acceptance.


Yes, mathematically, 2+2=4, but if you were to lip one of the twos....then 2+2=fish.
Debate Round No. 1


First and foremost, my opponent was strictly informed that the first round was for acceptance only. Because he presented and argument in the first round, he has violated the rules of this debate. This should, however, only have an effect on the conduct point, and not the argument points. That said, let's continue.

2+2 is both greater than or equal to and less than or equal to 4.

Integers are an infinite group relating to addition. Since 2 is an integer, 2+2 must also be an integer.

Now pretend that 2 + 2 < 4. We have 2 > 0. Adding two to both sides, we get 2+2 > 0+2. Since 0 is the identity element for addition, we have 2 + 2 > 2. So 2<2+2<4. Thus, 2+2 equals three, right?

However, accrording to Fermat's Little Theorem[1], 2+2 cannot be a prime integer.

Three, however, is a prime number. So by Fermat's Little Theorem, 2+2 must be greater than or equal to 4. So now, all we have to do is prove that 2+2 is not greater than four.

Now, think of a as the solution of 2+2=a. Thus, a-2=2+0. According to Segal's Lemma[2], this cannot allow a to be greater than four.

Thus, 2+2 is less than or equal to four, and since we walready have that 2+2 is greater than or equal to four...


2+2 is an integer, and "fish" is not an integer.

My opponent makes the claim that 2+2 = fish. Mathematically (as stated as the basis for the resolution), 2+2 cannot equal "fish" because 2+2, as stated, must be an integer. and "fish" is not an integer.

Thus, only a pro vote can be warranted.





Two plus two does not equal four in all 4 scales of measurement. Two plus two only equal four when using the interval and ratio categories. The nominal category just names or classifies, and the ordinal scale is pretty much the same as the nominal scale, except it ranks as well. Therefore two plus two does not necessarily exist on either scale, let alone equal four. And, where laws of physics differ, 2+2 may very well equal 0.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has not read the terms of my resolution, as posted in Round one. The resolution is as follows:

"In elementary level arithmetic, two plus two equals four (2+2=4)."

The key term here is "Elementary Level Arithmetic." My opponent argues that 2+2 does not equal 4 in all scales of measurement, which is completely true, and I'm not arguing against that. The only thing I am arguing is that in the math your learn in first grade, 2+2=4.

That said, my opponent has not refuted my mathematical proof in Round 2, which means I win this debate. But if that's not enough, imagine this:

The second successor of zero added to the second successor of zero will equal the fourth successor of zero.

Picture it this way: zero is nothing. We represent nothing with this symbol--- 0.

One more unit than nothing can be known as the successor of zero (or, S(0) or even better, 1.)

Following the pattern, the next unit is S(S(0) or, 2.

Essentially, all that has to be proven is that S(S(0) + S(S(0) = S(S(S(S(0). You don't need to be an expert mathematician that when you take two of the letter "S" and add them to two more of the letter "S", you get four of the letter "S."

In elementary level arithmetic, we express this as 2+2=4.


Because my opponent has disregarded my Round 2 arguments, because his new argument goes outside the terms of my resolution, and through the new reasoning I have presented, you can see that the only reasonable vote is in favor of Pro.


TazM forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Putting the forfeit aside, note that even in the rounds where my opponent didn't forfeit, he has failed to address my arguments throughout this whole debate. Thus, a Pro vote is now fully warranted.


I am a female, firstly and I will admit that yes, society has taught us that 2 plus 2=4
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Gubernaculum 6 years ago
Just throwing it out there, 2+2=100
Posted by MassiveDump 7 years ago
I was kidding.
Posted by TazM 7 years ago
That's mean, unnecessary and unprofessional. This debate did seem a bit pointless and although I accepted the challenge, I admit, I was bored and hungry for my first debate. That comment was unnecessary.
Posted by MassiveDump 7 years ago
So's ya face.
Posted by SeekinTruth 7 years ago
This 'debate' is disgraceful.
Posted by wwwwh 7 years ago
wait you are really debating this? wtf lol
Posted by xXCryptoXx 7 years ago
Ohhhh Con gotchou I'd like to see you rebut dat
Posted by MassiveDump 7 years ago
Posted by xXCryptoXx 7 years ago
This is desperate, even for you
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: A silly debate to begin with, but Con did not comply to the rules of the debate and so forfeits.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.