The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

1 is a prime number.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
PandaSam67 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 177 times Debate No: 94451
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




A friend and I had a lengthy debate about whether or not 1 was a prime number. My friend defined a prime number as a whole number that cannot be divided by another whole number and result in a whole number.

I then argued that 7 wasn't a prime number because it could be divided by 7 and result in a whole number. Then, he argued divided by another whole number other than itself or 1 and result in a whole number.

Anyways we reached a stalemate. I said -5,-3,-,2,-1, 1, 2, 3 ,5 , and 7 were prime numbers. He said -5, -3, -2, -,1, and 1 were not prime numbers, but 2 ,3, 5, and 7 were.

So who was right, is one a prime number? I say it is. Since if you divide one by 3 you get 1/3 which is not a whole number.


One is not a prime number. A prime number is a natural number (positive integers (whole numbers)) greater than 1 that has no positive divisors other than 1 and itself. By this definition, negatives can not be prime. Some examples are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, and 109. If you still aren't completely sure, go to with website.
Debate Round No. 1


bah, your right by definition 1 isn't a prime number. Seem arbitrary that one would be left out. I mean two is a prime number and its right next to one. There seems no good reason that one isn't a prime number. Also, don't understand why negative numbers can't be prime. Again, seems arbitrary.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Zaephou 2 months ago
negatives cannot be prime because they can be divided by a negative number, 1 and a positive number
Posted by vi_spex 2 months ago
Posted by vi_spex 2 months ago
prime=1=vi spex,bitches
Posted by vi_spex 2 months ago
and 7 isnt a prime number, cant divide with 1

religious non sense
Posted by vi_spex 2 months ago
there are no natural numbers.. nature is 1
Posted by dustryder 2 months ago
The fundamental theorem of arithmetic states that any integer greater than one has a unique factorization of primes. If one is a prime, this longer holds, therefore one is not defined as a prime
Posted by Cobalt 2 months ago
Sorry I forfeited that other debate; I got super busy and never got to it. Now it'll be stuck in limbo for ages.

I would otherwise take this debate, as I take anything math related.

Simply put, one is not a prime number, since the definition of "prime number" is any integer that is greater than one, whose only positive integer divisors are itself and 1. So, by definition, 1 is not prime.
Posted by warren42 2 months ago

It seems that you're both right/both wrong as one is apparently neither prime nor composite.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.