Which is generally stronger? a queen or two rooks?

yes it depends on position of rooks for sure. also skill level, a queen is easier for novice. i would take the queen and a positional advantage, or the rooks with the same. 

I initially get excited if I can trade my 2 Rooks for a Queen but the opponents 2 Rooks usually cause me a pain.

Two rook vs three minors is rare in practise but interesting as well.  

i think 2 rooks

That is correct. Judit Polgar said, KQ is better in closed position , KRR is better in open position.

As there are all subjective.

Luckily we have got 100% correct objective data, for up to 7 men.

All possible position of KQP vs KRRP is more than 1 trillion positions, 1,000,000,000,000 .

KRRP won in 370 billion  positions (37%)

KQP won in 310 billion positions (31%)

320 billion positions are draw (31.5%)

https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=3rkr2/5p2/8/8/8/8/5P2/4KQ2_w_-_-_0_1

So KRRP has slightly more chance of winning.

need to know what else is on the board.

You can put additional pieces on the board!! But it will take massive computing power to force calculate all those possible positions! My estimated guess is,

 If you use current common desktop 4 cores pc, it will take

100+ years to calculate 8 men table-base.

10000+ years to calculate 9 men table-base

Or, you could simply go through a database and see the average scores of GMs for a given configuration. 

The answer to the question is that it really depends on the position. There are millions of positions where the queen is better and millions of positions where the 2 rooks are better.  

If material is down to an endgame than more often the 2 rooks are better.  However in the middle game probably more often the queen is better.  

depends of the game.

Fischer preferred the Q over two rooks when there were a bunch of other pieces on the board and the opposing side didn't have time to coordinate his pieces. 

Fischer was a classicist. He rated a Q to be worth about 9 pawns and 2 rooks to be worth ten pawns. But he was a concrete analyst who preferred the Q+minor pieces when they were well coordinated.

𝐼 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑡𝒉𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑢𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼 𝑡𝒉𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝒉𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑤𝒉𝑒𝑛 𝑦𝑜𝑢'𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡𝒉𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑜𝑟 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑘𝑠 𝑡𝒉𝑒𝑛 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑔𝒉𝑡 𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟. 𝐼𝑓 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝒉𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝒉𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑘𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝒉𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑔𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑙𝑤𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑠𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑎 𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝒉𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜. 𝐻𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑡𝒉𝑎𝑡'𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝒉𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝒉𝑎𝑡 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑟 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑠𝒉𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑'𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝒉𝑒 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡.
 

It is not that easy, there are billions of chess games. How many same games will you take for more accuracy?  1000,  or 1,000,000 size.

GM database results include much about players performance, rather than the real nature of position.

Computer games are more accurate but it wont be that much different from statistics of 7 men TB.

It’s true. You can make things as complicated as you want.

The question asked, in general...

Generally, the two rooks are stronger. There are plenty of exceptions.

Was too good GM's are two good real good players queen versus two rooks can always be drawish

Like anything, it is a question of training.  It depends upon how much time they spent in the gym.

I was in an exhibition match among several players against Larry Christiansen and trapped his queen, or so I thought.  I gave up my two rooks to get the Queen.  He ate my lunch from there.  Since that lesson, I've found matches leaving me 2 rooks against a queen without any suffering.

Trivial edge for the Queen. But again every Q vs RR instance is unique so the statistics don't matter that much. One can say it's as good as "home-field advantage" in football to put it in perspective.