The number 4 is Even

My opponent begins by claiming that I called him a "moron or ignorant buffoon". I assure readers that absolutely nowhere in my case did I resort to abusive ad hominem attacks. My opponent then goes on to again, completely misunderstand my argument. He writes specifically:"He says the color blue exists objectively so it wouldn't matter if we were here to see the color blue it would still exist it simply wouldn't have a label much like that the number four exists 4/2 is still two 2*2 still would equal four"Firstly, the very existence of the color blue directly depends on the perception evoked by light of a certain wavelength. My chair is blue, not because blue exists as an objective quality regardless of human perception, but because I perceive the specific wavelength of light in a specific way. So, the word 'blue' is a descriptive word, describing the perception of light at a specific wavelength. "he says we 'simply look to definition of abstract' the definition of a word proves the existence of the concept bad argument according to my opponent Minotaur's exist would be considered true since the definition of minotaur is half man half bull then he must exist."Again, a complete misrepresentation of my argument. Yes, the definition of the word 'abstract' is why I believe 'abstract' concepts do not exist in reality or actuality. The definition's purpose is to describe objects that do not actually exist. And as to my opponent's argument that minotaur's exist because of the definition, I don't really see where he's going. I believe he might be trying to show that a definition does not prove existence. However this is a very different case then whether or not something being 'abstract' means it does not exist. The word 'abstract' is used as an adjective to describe objects or concepts that do not exist in reality or actuality. The fact that not everything we think of exists is self-evidence and itself proves the definition of 'abstract' concepts. A minotaur though is a noun. As such, if one is to be justified in believing that it exists, one needs more than definitional evidence. This fact does not take away from the fact that abstract objects do not exist though. The analogy is fallacious. It's like comparing apples to oranges. My opponent then writes:"my opponent has not made any arguments as too why the number four is not even he has made an argument as too why the number four does not exist however in order to debate this resolution it assumes that the number four does exist in order to debate it's nature and characteristics."These claims are actually demonstratably false. My opponent makes two claims here, both of which are just plain not true. His first claim is that in this debate, we are assuming the existenc of the number four. We can simply look at both my opponent's and my R1 to see if either of us mentioned whether four would be assumed to exist. A quick look shows that neither of us ever even mentioned the existence of the number four. My opponent's second claim is that this debate is on the "nature and characteristics" of the number four. Again, this claim is just not true. In my R1 I wrote what I would be arguing. I wrote specifically: "I will be arguing for the negation of the resolution, namely that the sentence "The number 4 is even." is false. My opponent will argue for the affirmative of the resolution or that the above sentence is true.". It has been very clear from the moment this debate started that I would be arguing over the truth value of the sentence "The number 4 is even.". My opponent knows this and so is trying to confuse the readers of this debate. Now on to how voters should vote after the conclusion of this debate.Conduct: ConMy opponent violated really the only rule that I made for this debate which was that the definitions I provide must be agreed to before we begin the debate. I wrote specifically: "The definitions that are provided must be agreed to before the debate begins." My opponent then wrote in his R1, "I do not accept you definition of "even" I propose the following...". Even as this point did not come out as a point of disagreement, my opponent violated the only rule I laid out.Sources: ConEasy vote. I was the only one who provided any sources. Their validity in regards to this debate was also never brought up as a point of contention.Spelling/grammar: ConMy opponent has made numerous grammatical errors over the course of this debate. I will list only a few."Hello and thank you for this debate"-- There should be a period at the end of the sentence."I do not accept you definition of "even" I propose the following"-- There should be a comma after the word 'even' and a colon should have been provided after the word 'following' to introduce the definition."I await my opponents response And once more thank you for this debate"-- There should be a period at the end of the sentence. Also, there is no need for the capitalization of the word 'and'."thank you cordially, HPG"-- Again, no period at the end of the sentence and no capitalization of the word 'thank'.Arguments: ConPro was unable to find fault with my premises or their logical conclusions.He brought an argument against my P2 which I showed to be fallacious in that a straightforward claim is a claim describing the reality of a situation or object and as such, the situation or object in question must exist to be considered as part of 'reality'.Pro also brought an analogy in an attempt to show that if the sentence "4 is even." is not true then the sentence "Blus is pretty." is not true. However I showed this attempt to be fallacious in that the color blue exists as an objective perception, evoked by a specific wavelength of light.Pro then brought the claim that in this debate we were assuming the existence of the number four and so my entire argument from mathematical fictionalism was moot. However, if one looks at both of our R1's, one will see that not only was the number four's existence never brought up as being assumed, but I explicitly wrote that I would be arguing the truth-value of the sentence "4 is even'.Vote 7 points to Con.