Instigator / Pro
64
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Topic
#942

2+2=4: Change my Mind

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
27
12
Better sources
20
14
Better legibility
10
10
Better conduct
7
6

After 11 votes and with 22 points ahead, the winner is...

Our_Boat_is_Right
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
42
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
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.

-->
@David

Gracias senor

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Fair point. I'll delete my vote.

-->
@David

It doesn't matter what he thought, it still evened out death's vote bomb.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

he said it was countering Ramshutu, not Death

-->
@David

He was countering death23's vote bomb.

-->
@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.
*******************************************************************

But math is so hard... 1-7=0 right?
/sarcasm

-->
@RationalMadman

A counter vote will will include conduct

-->
@Dr.Franklin

XD lol

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

or if you don't like me or you hate both of us like Omar! Vote whatever, who cares.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

lol

GUYS, its a troll debate and not modded, so if you don't like boat, vote for me!

-->
@Death23

Thanks.

-->
@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.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Vote bomb is still a vote bomb

-->
@David

This is not a truism. I have proved that you via abstract math you 2+2 can equal 2. I have also proved that the concept connects the algebra taught in schools.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

lol its not like its gonna make a difference anyway

-->
@K_Michael

Truism debates are troll debates defined by the CoC.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

lol im not desperate for wins u literally just violated the rules...

-->
@WolframMagic

You did nothing wrong. Someone reported your vote and I determined that it did not need to be removed. Anytime someone reports a vote, I will tag the person who gets reported and will give them an explanation for any mod decision that I make.

-->
@David

I...? What? What happened? What did I do? I'm so confused... I was just adding my opinion??

-->
@WolframMagic

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: WolframMagic // Mod Action: Not Removed

Points awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct

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.
*******************************************************************

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
@Dr.Franklin

So file that away for future reference: at least one mod and one top notch debater might vote for a persuasive kritic or semantic arg because they consider a truism debate essentially fair game. Franklin might have won this debate by jumping on "American Math" or even just by calling foul on the premise.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

No,it was a waive. I said something was posted in the comments, you stickler

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Glad to hear fun was had.

-->
@dustryder

Stop taking things so seriously.

I see someone is getting quite desperate for debate wins.Well whatever, Im not here for that, It was a fun debate.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Thanks for catching that, Boat. For some reason, I get very dyslexic in the vote box and I'm sure the mods are tired of deleting.

Voters,

Con violated the waive rule in his final round and made another argument. This is an automatic loss of argument and conduct point, per the rules.

-->
@oromagi

You accidentally voted for the wrong side lol

Arguments to Pro:

The topic 2+2=4 is so tautological that the it is often used as an example of tautology, of base reality. You have to change the nature of the universe to make the statement untrue. Essentially, the point is proved before the debate is instigated- so the value of the debate is in Con's degree of difficulty and the poetics used to question reality's fabric.

Con's first effort is lame:2 people plus another 2 people equals 2 kids. That changes the equation. 2x + 2x still always equals 4x.

Pro asks Con to stick to math.

Con responds with a fairly egregious act of plagiarism:

https://www.quora.com/Is-2-plus-2-always-4

Con uses Software Engineer Pavel Bukhmatov's fairly excellent 2018 Quora post almost word for word. Con adds one sentence front & back and suggests no other authorship. This argument will not, therefore, be credited to Con.

Pro appeals to the no semantics rule.

Con waives but points to evidence in comments. These too, must be disregarded.

One famous truism vs. one lame and false retort. Pretty clear who won this.

Sources to Pro:

Con was the only one who used sources but failed to credit authorship eliminating his only potentially worthwhile effort at addressing Pro's contention.

Conduct to Pro:

Plagiarism in the writer's arena is worse than shit conduct, it is theft. In future, make certain to credit every source used on DART.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

https://blogs.ams.org/matheducation/2015/12/10/connections-between-abstract-algebra-and-high-school-algebra-a-few-connections-worth-exploring/

-->
@Dr.Franklin

lmao

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

People can vote however they want to on this debate because truism debates aren't moderated AFAIK.

-->
@Ramshutu

Is that anywhere in the CoC? It's not even fine print, it's literally a description. You can't simply reject the rules. If you don't like the rules, then you don't accept. By accepting, you consent to the rules. It is not on my blame to make different rules. You can't just vote against me because you arbitrarily decide you don't like the rules, especially as a mod.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

The debate is unwinnable if the rules you’ve stated are enforced.

I reject the premise that it’s okay to create an unwinnable debate, for the purposes of scamming free points from someone who doesn’t read the fine print well enough to realize.

If your not willing to earn a win by offering good arguments; and simply by asserting arbitrary rules: then you should willing to eat a loss when those rules are rejected.

-->
@Ramshutu

I didn't say it was totally unwinnable, I said it was highly unlikely. Rules are rules. The contender that accepts the debate knows what he is getting into. It is not fair to the rules and the debate.

"As a voter I don’t accept or enforce rules that would prevent one side from winning before an argument has been posted."
It is con's fault that he accepted. He saw the rules.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Or expressly argue that the rules of the debate should be rejected as they make the debate unfair or unreasonable.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Best bet is to argue poor conduct for making an unwinnable debate IMO.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

If the debate has deliberately selected rules to make it unwinnable - it’s not a debate. As a voter I don’t accept or enforce rules that would prevent one side from winning before an argument has been posted. If your opponent makes an interesting semantic argument, I would accept it provided its good.

(see: https://www.debateart.com/debates/525 for some interesting precedents)

Truisms are rarely well supported.

Plus Orwell.

-->
@K_Michael

It is pretty much unwinnable. I shouldn't get a consequence for creating the debate. The contender accepted it knowingly, I shouldn't take the blame for the fault of the contender. If you don't think it is winnable, then don't accept it.

-->
@bsh1
@Our_Boat_is_Right

When someone purposely creates a debate for the purposes of it being undebatable, there should be some kind of foul on their part. 2+2=4 is an noncontendable fact, so far as I know, so it can't be logically debated. Either this debate and others like it should be labeled as spam or the instigator should lose conduct points automatically, or something.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

lol u literally have to argue semantics in order to win

-->
@Alec

Well what the fuck is "standard American Math" mean. It means they are different ways in math taught by Americans via number systems. Thats not a semantic. I need that to win this debate. This debate is incredibly hard to win from my standpoint.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

He said, "no semantics allowed".

Well, he said "standard American Math" which can mean some different things.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

You 2+2=4 debate idea.

-->
@Alec

copy what?

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Can I copy?