2 equals 3
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
TheRussian
Voting Style:  Open  Point System:  7 Point  
Started:  8/15/2014  Category:  Miscellaneous  
Updated:  3 years ago  Status:  Post Voting Period  
Viewed:  1,639 times  Debate No:  60502 
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (33)
Votes (5)
This debate will be more for fun that to actually prove that 2=3, but I just want to see where we can go with this. I will be arguing that 2 equals 3.
First Round is for acceptance. Any questions will be answered in the comments.
I accept the challenge! 

Thanks for accepting. I do not genuinely believe that 2=3, but it's fun to play around with the numbers.
We start with the following equation: (2(5/2))^2 = (3(5/2))^2 (Yes, those do equal each other, type it into a calculator if you don't believe me) Now that we've established the validity of the above equation, you take the square root of both sides (removing the ^2) and the negative 5/2 "cancel out" on either side. You are left with 2=3.
Being that I know didsquat about math, I'll be taking a different approach. Obviously I already win, because 2 doesn't equal 3. They are empirically different numbers. But that's unimportant to me. You see, 1, by the Greek Philosopher Plotinus, represents everything. As in, reality and existence. 2, on the other hand represents the duality of everything. 2 represents good and evil. In the bible, the ten commandments came on two tablets. God commanded two of every animal to come on the ark. 2 is a number of luck and prosperity in Chinese culture. 3 is by far the most important number here. Christians will know the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit, or Peter's triple denial and resulting triple affirmation in Christ, the Magi's three gifts, or devils temptation three times. There is the Hindu Trimurt and Tridevi, the triple Bodhi... the list is endless. So, thereby I argue that 2 is not 3 mathematically or philosophically. Two, the duality, three the trinity form separate entities in religion and in philosophy. 
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by LDPOFODebATeR0328 3 years ago
TheRussian  64bithuman  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  3  0 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments still stands.
@Con How do you even lose this?
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
TheRussian  64bithuman  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  3  0 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro unrefuted.
Vote Placed by medv4380 3 years ago
TheRussian  64bithuman  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  3  0 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was defiantly wrong, but he did present the better argument.
The problem is actually a simple math problem. If Con was a child with no knowledge of math then I'd accept his answer. However, I cannot accept that answer for someone claiming to have a Bachelors and be nearly 30.
Simple put the problem is in taking the Square Root. You can only do that operation if both sides happen to be the same sign, or Absolute value.
The Simple way to disprove it is do actually do the math that taking the square root implies.
You'll come to a point where 0.5^2 = 0.5^2. If you take the root as Pro did you'll end up with 0.5 = 0.5. But if you change it to 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.5 * 0.5 and do the division that taking the square root implies you'll still get a correct answer.
The counter proof is too simple for me to accept the response Con gave for anyone with an education.
And in the Age of Google simply doing a search for "2=3 proof" gives the solution on the first hit.
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 3 years ago
TheRussian  64bithuman  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  0  3 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's mathematical proof that 2=3 was flawed. So even though Con did not refute it, he did not have to. Con also showed that 2=/=3 in philosophy.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
TheRussian  64bithuman  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  3  0 
Reasons for voting decision: 2 may not symbolize the same thing as 3 in philosophy, but this does not suggest that 2 =/= 3. As Pro's (fallicial) equation proved, 2 equals three mathematically
There's an interplay to this math formula.
As there is the: "22.50 = 0.50
32.50 = 0.50
2 leads to a negative 0.50
3 leads to a positive 0.50
As the difference between 3 and 2, is 1. The formula contains half of 1 (0.50)"
The math formula is legitimately two formulas in one formula, as one formula is interconnecting with another formula because they complete each other when you add both 0.50's, which equals 1, which is the difference between 3 and 2.
22.50 = 0.50
32.50 = 0.50
2 leads to a negative 0.50
3 leads to a positive 0.50
As the difference between 3 and 2, is 1. The formula contains half of 1 (0.50), so all the numbers played into each other because of their basic relations.
~Solved
The ^ changes the 3 into another 2, because the ^ is challenging the 3 as being half a number, but since the formula prevented it from having more math material to provide it with, the 3 declines to a 2. Therefore, it looks like they are two different formulas on the surface, but the ^2 is causing the 3 to fall back down to 2.