All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

# 2 equals 3

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2

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)

 Pro 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.Report this Argument Con I accept the challenge!Report this Argument Pro 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.Report this Argument Con Being that I know did-squat 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.Report this Argument
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 64bithuman 3 years ago
I used a bit of hyperbole....I know some stuff about math...
Posted by medv4380 3 years ago
Calling your self 64 bit human and then claim that you know nothing about math. Really.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
The comment section is a general soap box. I could be talking to a white Siberian tiger right now.
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
equation*
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
haha, no need to explain, I know the formula :P
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Finally, the grand finale! The 1 then brings both formulas together, because that 1 is what leads both formulas to 0.50, yet on different math spectrums! (positive and negative)
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
If you did not catch it, let me explain it a bit further.

There's an interplay to this math formula.

As there is the: "2-2.50 = 0.50

3-2.50 = 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.
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
Umm....sure....
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
The only reason why the 2 was transposed into 0.50 and the 3 was transposed into 0.50 is because of this:

2-2.50 = 0.50

3-2.50 = 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
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Well, I know why they both equal 0.25. However, the title of your debate is "2 equals 3", which has nothing to do with the formulaic absurdity I explained in my last response.

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.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.