Instigator / Pro
Points: 64

2+2=4: Change my Mind

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 11 votes the winner is ...
Our_Boat_is_Right
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 42
Description
It is my position that when the number "2", as used in standard american math, is added with another "2", you get the number "4". No semantics allowed. These numbers are used in American math, primarily school. I will waive, first round, con will waive last. Failure is loss of argument and conduct point.
Round 1
Published:
2+2=4 in every school system in America.  This is my position.  Con tries to change my mind.  No semantics.  I waive.
Published:
Well in sex-ed if you take 2 in relationship with people you get 1 child. So 2 people plus another 2 people equals 2 kids.

Mic drop
Round 2
Published:
Notice I said "math," not "health."  If we were talking about reproduction, then that would be true.  But we are not.  We are talking about public school math.  I also said the number "2," not 2 people.  I used the "+" and "=" as in math.  If I were talking about health, I wouldn't have used math terms.  This is also a semantic argument.  I made clear that it was math and felt everyone knew I was talking about math.  I applaud the effort by con tho XD
Published:
You want math, I got you dawg

There is a field named abstract algebra (wiki) which defines and allows you to create pretty much any mathematical context you wish.E.g. let’s create a thing, called group where 2+2=4, WILL NOT hold, but 2+2=2, actually WILL be true. The definition of group states (wiki) that in order for algebraic structure to be called a group we have to do the following:
  • Define a set of elements (which may or may not be finite). We define a set of 2 elements 2,2,4
  • Define a single operation. Let’s define a single operation ‘plus’ which we will denote as ++ for simplicity (Although, we can use any sign we wish, e.g. $$ or ∗∗ if you think it suites you)
  • Make sure our group satisfy some group axioms. We will first list and explain then and then define our elements accordingly. The axioms are the following:
    • Closure. The result of operation between any 2 elements of the group should still be part of the group. (In our case it means that regardless of what you do with 4 and 2 and in what order the result should always be either 4 or 2)
    • Associativity. For any 𝑎,𝑏,𝑐a,b,c the following should hold true: 𝑎+(𝑏+𝑐)a+(b+c) =(𝑎+𝑏)+𝑐(a+b)+c where ()() shows which operation should take precedence
    • Identity elements. There should be a unique element (let’s call it ‘𝑒e’) which is part of the group and for any element 𝑎a (including 𝑒e. Any means naturally ANY element of group) the following equation should hold true 𝑒+𝑎=𝑎+𝑒=𝑎.e+a=a+e=a.
    • Inverse elements. For any element 𝑏b from group there exists and element 𝑎a from group, such that following equation holds true 𝑎+𝑏=𝑏+𝑎=𝑒a+b=b+a=e (where e is and identity element)Not we have to suffice this 4 axioms in order for set of elements {2,4} and operation + to be called a group.
Let’s define our identity element as 2. And then list all of possible equations in this group. They are the following:
  • 4+4=2. Why? Because any element in group should have an inverse element. What is an inverse element for 4? Well. it’s 4. Nobody have stated that the inverse element can not be the same element!
  • 2+4=4. Because 2 in an identity element. This also defines 4 at inverse element for 2. So now 4 is inverse element for itself AND for 2. (Again nobody have stated that the same element can not be inverse element for more then one element)
  • 4+2=4. Because 2 in an identity element.
  • 2+2=2. Finally. We are here! Why is this correct? The short answer is because we said so.
The long answer is because we can prove, that the group defined in such a way suffice all axioms for groups. And we can prove it!
  • Closure axiom is trivial. We can clearly see that there is no other element apart from 2 and 4 which is produced by all 4 possible combinations of 2 and 4 and + operation between them
  • Associativity maybe harder to prove. One of the ways is to check whatever ALL possible equations such as 𝑎+(𝑏+𝑐)=(𝑎+𝑏)+𝑐.a+(b+c)=(a+b)+c.Hold true.In our case it's rather easy, because we only have 2 elements in group, thus only 8 possible equations.
  • Our Identity element is 2 and the equation defined in axiom holds true (2 + 4 = 4 + 2 = 2)
  • Each element has an inverse element. Inverse element is 4 for element 4. Inverse element for 2 is also 4.
As you can clearly see, abstract mathematics is not about ‘logic’. It’s more about defining whatever you want however you want and then proving (this is the most important part) that your definitions suffice axioms of algebraic structure you are trying to create.
So... back to question. Is 2 plus 2 always 4? The correct answer is: It depends. Depends on what algebraic structure we are dealing with. What are the elements of this structure and what exactly does ‘plus’ mean.

REAL Mic Drop
Round 3
Published:
I was never talking about this weird math concept.  This is semantics, which is against the rules.  In the public school system, 2+2=4.  They teach basic math skills for later classes like algebra, calculus, and almost any math program.  Abstract algebra is not taught and not a standard in public schools.  Nice try, but you lose.  Good debate.  You waive last round, per the rules.
Published:
waive, though evidence for connection of abstract math and real algebra tough in schools are in comments
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Gracias senor
Instigator
#50
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
Fair point. I'll delete my vote.
#49
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
It doesn't matter what he thought, it still evened out death's vote bomb.
Instigator
#48
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
he said it was countering Ramshutu, not Death
#47
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
He was countering death23's vote bomb.
Instigator
#46
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: RationalMadman // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.

A troll debate is any:
Competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition)
Debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content
Debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried")
Since this debate is a truism, no action is taken.
*******************************************************************
#45
Added:
But math is so hard... 1-7=0 right?
/sarcasm
#44
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
A counter vote will will include conduct
Contender
#43
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
XD lol
Instigator
#42
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
or if you don't like me or you hate both of us like Omar! Vote whatever, who cares.
Contender
#41
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
lol
Instigator
#40
Added:
GUYS, its a troll debate and not modded, so if you don't like boat, vote for me!
Contender
#39
Added:
--> @Death23
Thanks.
Contender
#38
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
A truism is defined as "a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting." In this case, this meets the definition.
#37
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
Vote bomb is still a vote bomb
#36
#11
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
cuz yes......
#10
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Counter votebomb to ramshutu
#9
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Clearly this was an unreasonable attempt to create a debate win with an unwinnable resolution and ruleset.
While I would have awarded points to con for pointing out the lack of reasonableness of the rules; cons argument was not good enough to really overturn the resolution. Saying that - I’m not going to award any points to someone who sets up a truism debate unless that debate is reasonable.
If you subject yourself to no risk, you get no reward.
#8
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Because I felt like it.
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Countering WolframMagic's poor vote which only analyzes one side.
Until he/she posts a sufficient vote my CVB will stand
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
RFD in comments.
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Argument points to Pro for using a universal fact as his claim.
Conduct points taken from Pro for using a universal fact as his claim. "A statement essentially arguable, but used as a primary point to support or prove an argument is called a claim." Stating a fact as your argument is in bad faith. I petition that before any mods remove this vote (if they consider doing so) there be a discussion on non-arguable claims. I propose that they be automatically labeled as trolls.
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
... 2+2=4. Enough said. It's basic math and it cant be proved wrong unless you somehow live in a parallel universe
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
All kudos points to con! (seriously, it wouldn't be a bad additional point category...)
Arguments to pro. More or less this was dealing with a truism, to which con needed a hard K, or to bring on the laughs.
Math (pro): 2+2 reliably equals 4. This is the most important area of contention, to which con had the general duty to disprove (or at least to cast doubt).
Biology (tie): Amusing side node, but it doesn't hold actual weight toward the resolution without more put into it. Why 2a+2a=2k doesn't actually line up, for starters where did the adults disappear to? Con could have used historical information that women die in childbirth decreasing the overall number when adults are combined, but the follow through was missing.
Abstract (tie): Had con pulled Numebrwang (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0obMRztklqU) on this, it could have gone somewhere... But his end proof is that 2+2=2 because he said so, is just a weak assertion. Defining things however you want, and making a point of that, leaves any sane person not questioning that classic math is a better way to do it, leaving the original answer unchallenged.
How con could have won?
Most easily just showing that Americans suck at math (this debate was on standard american mathematics taught in school, given our nation debt we clearly can't balance a checkbook) ... Otherwise, quoting René Descartes; Quoting George Orwell and applying that we live post 1984; or likewise quoting certain modern thinkers (ideally with appeals to authority for their universities) who insist we cannot obey objective science due to racism. Bad math could have also done it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVI5s6CyoUY).
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
RFD in comments
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
It's hard to describe which annoys me more. A debate with rules that desperately attempts to guarantee a win or a response that is unashamedly plagiarized. At no point in reading this debate did I find anything that indicated it was anything other than a troll debate. Everyone who has read this debate is now dumber for having done so. I award neither of you any points and may God have mercy on your souls.