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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

cuz yes......

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Counter votebomb to ramshutu

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Because I felt like it.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Countering WolframMagic's poor vote which only analyzes one side.

Until he/she posts a sufficient vote my CVB will stand

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

RFD in comments.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

... 2+2=4. Enough said. It's basic math and it cant be proved wrong unless you somehow live in a parallel universe

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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).

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

RFD in comments

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.