No, technically it did begin in 2001. Common use has turned it around. It's like driving on the highway. If everyone else is driving on the left side of the road, driving down the right side of the road, while technically correct is not right. Same thing. Why do you think that the millennium started in 2000? I've given you evidence (the calendar starts on year 1, so at the end of the first year it became year 2) which means, if you count, the first decade ended at the end of year 10. Year 11 began the next one. So where did we lose a year that 2000 starts a new decade/millennium and 2020 starts a new decade? I was arguing in fun, then you people start insulting intelligence like simple math is beyond you because it doesn't feel right.
But I'm the one who probably believes the Earth is flat? Refute me with actual fact rather than "it just is derrrr"
But if I actually cared to debate you on THIS particular topic, OK, then lets have at it: YOU'RE WRONG!!
What you're arguing, is numerical. What we're arguing is, chronological. It's apples to oranges. Here's why:
Yes it is not correct to start counting numerically from 0 to....whatever. Typically, people start counting with "1". And in order to get to ten (10) numbers - numerically - one has to include the number "10", because again, 0 is not typically included.
But again, this issue is chronological, not numerical. When one says, "he's in his twenties", they don't mean from 21 to 30. A thirty-year old is NOT in his/her "twenties" - they are beginning with their "thirties".
Here is another example of chronological usage that applies even more to our debate: Are we in the 21st Century, or the 20th? If the year is 2019, then it should be the 20th Century, correct? It would have to be 2119, to be in the 21st Century, right?
But its not correct. The 21st Century includes from 2000 through 2099, just like the 20th Century included 1900 through 1999. Just like the 19th Century included 1800 through 1899.
Because the very FIRST Century included Year 0 through Year 99. Year "0"??? There is no such thing, right?
But there is. They don't call it Year 1 one day out of the gate. You have to actually compile 365 days for it to be Year 1. It could be within Year 1 50 days into it, but you never say you've lived one year 50 days into it. A full year is 365 days long.
But a "year" is NOT numerical, it's chronological. An entire year lasts 365 days. So chronologically speaking, it IS Year 1 even 50 days into it. Just as when January 1st gets here, it will be 2020, even though only ONE (1) single day has passed. In fact, that day doesn't even HAVE to pass - it will be 2020 a second into January 1st, because 2019 years will have officially passed into history, according to the calendar. And the calendar is totally chronological.
To support YOUR debate, we've have to throw away all that first year that precedes the 365th day of Year 1. 365 days is a lot of time to just throw away. We can't add them to the previous year: this calendar chronology relates to the birth of Jesus Christ. So we add those 365 days to the timeline known as B.C., or Before Christ? So we add a whole year that came after Christ was born, to the time period before he was born? That makes 0 sense, no pun intended.
So, YES - Year "1" started at "0", and ended 365 days later. The whole year, was Year "1". And Year 2010 also started at "0", or one second after December 31st, 2009 ended. That whole year, was Year 2010. So while it ends with a "0", it still was a "1", when you count chronologically. Just not numerically.
SO, to end your debate as a loss for you, this past decade began January 1st, 2010, and ends December 31st, 2019. Sorry.....
