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
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.
Round 1
2+2=4 in every school system in America. This is my position. Con tries to change my mind. No semantics. I waive.
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
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
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:
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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
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.
waive, though evidence for connection of abstract math and real algebra tough in schools are in comments
Gracias senor
Fair point. I'll delete my vote.
It doesn't matter what he thought, it still evened out death's vote bomb.
he said it was countering Ramshutu, not Death
He was countering death23's vote bomb.
*******************************************************************
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
A counter vote will will include conduct
XD lol
or if you don't like me or you hate both of us like Omar! Vote whatever, who cares.
lol
GUYS, its a troll debate and not modded, so if you don't like boat, vote for me!
Thanks.
A truism is defined as "a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting." In this case, this meets the definition.
Vote bomb is still a vote bomb
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.
lol its not like its gonna make a difference anyway
Truism debates are troll debates defined by the CoC.
lol im not desperate for wins u literally just violated the rules...
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.
I...? What? What happened? What did I do? I'm so confused... I was just adding my opinion??
*******************************************************************
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.
*******************************************************************
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.
No,it was a waive. I said something was posted in the comments, you stickler
Glad to hear fun was had.
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.
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.
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.
https://blogs.ams.org/matheducation/2015/12/10/connections-between-abstract-algebra-and-high-school-algebra-a-few-connections-worth-exploring/
lmao
People can vote however they want to on this debate because truism debates aren't moderated AFAIK.
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.
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.
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.
Or expressly argue that the rules of the debate should be rejected as they make the debate unfair or unreasonable.
Best bet is to argue poor conduct for making an unwinnable debate IMO.
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.
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.
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.
lol u literally have to argue semantics in order to win
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.
He said, "no semantics allowed".
Well, he said "standard American Math" which can mean some different things.
You 2+2=4 debate idea.
copy what?
Can I copy?