0 equals 2
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style:  Open  Point System:  7 Point  
Started:  11/6/2014  Category:  Miscellaneous  
Updated:  1 year ago  Status:  Post Voting Period  
Viewed:  481 times  Debate No:  64718 
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)
I have previously done a 2=3 debate, and a 1=2 debate. I will now debate that 0=2. Let's have some fun!
First Round is for acceptance and no new arguments can be made in the last round, only rebuttals. Any questions can be answered in the comments.
I accept your challenge, good sir. 8<) (guy with glasses 

Marvelous. The way I will achieve this is very simple.
0/0=(100100)/(100100)=(1010)(10+10)/(10(1010)) Make sense so far? In the numerator, I have changed the format, but it still equals zero because the (1010) is zero, and anything multiplied by zero is zero. In the denominator, I have simply factored out a 10. Next, the (1010)s divide out to 1, so we can remove them: (1010)(10+10)/10(1010)=(10+10)/10 Finally, the last simplifications: (10+10)/10=20/10=2 0=2 Now of course, my opponent will cry out: "You can't divide by zero!", and to that I ask...why not?
But you can't divide by zero. Or else the number would be infinite. For instance, zero would fit into seven an infinite amount of times, therefore, the number would be equal to infinity. 

My opponent gives a worthy response, but I believe it does not disprove my method.
When something is divided by zero, it is undefined. Not infinite. (When dividing 0 by 0, 0 could go into 0 either 3 times, or a million) It is "unknown" (because it can be any value) so we usually can't determine it. But in this case, I am giving a value to the equation. It doesn't matter how many times zero went into zero because the equation still holds true. The entire equation is mathematically sound because there is not a single step where the equation is unequal/untrue. I thank my opponent for accepting and responding to this fun little debate. MCMinecraft269 forfeited this round. 
Post a Comment
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
Yes sir! XD
Report this Comment
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
This is great news. So, when I go into a store and something costs 2 dollars, I can hand them zero and walk out the store.
Report this Comment
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
Undefined means you simply cannot determine the value. And actually no, I cannot make it any number, it will always be two. (Although if you play around some more, you could probably find a way to make it a different number), but with this method, you could use any number and the end result would still be two.
Report this Comment
Posted by Dagroet 1 year ago
Based on your argument, you could claim that 0= any number, which goes against what you said about a number divided by zero being undefined as opposed to infinite. A function with zero in the denominator IS described as undefined but that incentives the slope, not what that function equals.
Report this Comment
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
This isn't in the popular section btw haha, no where near enough comments
Report this Comment
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
Of course they are completely illogical! but they seem to be mathematically sound, and that's the fun of it :)
Report this Comment
Posted by Reeseroni 1 year ago
This argument is invalid given the case that I could interpret this math equation into everyday life, as in all math equations, and could say.. substitute 0 for air, and 2 for a piece of paper. If you were to use the same equations using biological and chemical breakdowns, you could legitimately prove that oxygen is the same as paper. That makes absolutely no sense, and I can conclude that your argument is likewise invalid. These types of arguments as you have proposed are simply mindboggling, but can be falsified by their converse, or even a substitution of similar or non similar objects into the position of the variables. This is just a random example, and the same theorem applies to the equation *2+2=5*, but this is simply falsified by using your fingers. (Discounting your thumb as a finger does not affect this situation). The idea is simply counting with your fingers. We all do it one time or another, and it is a basic instinct ifyouwill. When you take two fingers and place them next to two more fingers, how many fingers do you have? Oh wow! 4! Not 5! This is physically and algebraically impossible on so many levels. Can we please start seeing some more legitimate debates in the popular section, like on Abortion and Government Spending and all of that? These arguements belong solely in the Funny section and nowhere else, I mean come on! My question for you is this : Where did you come up with this? On your own? A math professor? This does not seem to resemble any form of elementary style equation (although it is comprised of basic numbers). While it is not complex, I would think it would take along time to compose! I'm sincerely curious. [Wow what a waste of about fifteen minutes...]
Report this Comment
Posted by MCMinecraft269 1 year ago
This makes no sense... but I will debate.
Report this Comment
Posted by MCMinecraft269 1 year ago
This makes no sense... but I will debate.
Report this Comment
No votes have been placed for this debate.