text
stringlengths 1
67.4k
| label
int64 0
1
| author
stringlengths 2
25
| original_text
stringlengths 6
75.8k
| category
stringclasses 23
values | round
int64 0
8
| debate_id
stringlengths 6
103
| idx
int64 10
82.5k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I accept your challenge. Thank you. You have to understand the proper concepts of this before you take a stance on it. 1/3 equals to 0.3333 repeating, meaning it is infinite after that. It is not an approximation, it is INFINITY and repeating. Also, my original argument was simply that 0.99999999 REPEATING equals to 1. Approximations were never implied, as this is INFINITY we are dealing with. Also, I am not too clear on your math, as when you divide 0.333 (I assume this to be repeating, so it's 1/3) by 3, you get 0.<PHONE> repeating. Dividing 3 by 0.33333 repeating equals to 0.99999. And even if my logic is somehow flawed, there are many more scenarios which outnumber your premise. For all sake of arithmetic, 99.9999999999999% and repeating (no pun intended) of all mathematicians and scientists in the world will tell you that <PHONE>... = 1. Is this scenario approximate? .9_=x 10x=9.9_ minus x from both sides and you receive: 9x=9 x=1 Also, you cannot subtract from infinity. If you subtract 0.9999 repeating from 1.0, assume that the 0.1 will still be infinite, meaning your answer cannot be provided if it is to result in anything tangible. I hope this makes sense. Thank you. | 0 | Sorrow |
I accept your challenge. Thank you.
You have to understand the proper concepts of this before you take a stance on it. 1/3 equals to 0.3333 repeating, meaning it is infinite after that. It is not an approximation, it is INFINITY and repeating. Also, my original argument was simply that 0.99999999 REPEATING equals to 1. Approximations were never implied, as this is INFINITY we are dealing with.
Also, I am not too clear on your math, as when you divide 0.333 (I assume this to be repeating, so it's 1/3) by 3, you get 0.11111111 repeating. Dividing 3 by 0.33333 repeating equals to 0.99999.
And even if my logic is somehow flawed, there are many more scenarios which outnumber your premise. For all sake of arithmetic, 99.9999999999999% and repeating (no pun intended) of all mathematicians and scientists in the world will tell you that 0.9999999... = 1.
Is this scenario approximate?
.9_=x
10x=9.9_
minus x from both sides and you receive:
9x=9
x=1
Also, you cannot subtract from infinity. If you subtract 0.9999 repeating from 1.0, assume that the 0.1 will still be infinite, meaning your answer cannot be provided if it is to result in anything tangible. I hope this makes sense.
Thank you. | Miscellaneous | 0 | .999-Repeating-is-Equal-to-1/1/ | 10 |
If a calculator cannot contrive the possibility of there being what you have stated, then how can humans possibly do so ourselves if we were the original inventors of the calculator? What separates a calculator's "mathematical conduct" and a human's "mathematical conduct"? The only way for CON to win this argument is through a sophist's use of semantics. This mathematical conduct you speak of, would you please care to elaborate? Multiplying 1/3 by 3 would guarantee you precisely 1, as you have mentioned, but only because the fraction is IMPLIED as a whole number. If we were to take it piece-by-piece, which would be 0.33_, times that by three, then it cannot possibly equal 1, by logic. HOWEVER, the resulting 0.000_1 value is so small, it would have no use in mathematical equations. That's like saying subtracting infinity from infinity, or multiplying infinity by infinity, to reinforce my previous argument. I do not see any theory here, just simple logistics. While indeed physicists employ calculus, what makes your physics professor have more merit than the word of a thousand other physics professors? Being a student myself, I know that there are at least a dozen ways of simplifying this equation in order for it to equal 1. I would not choose to go through that many variables, because it is time-consuming, but if you look at Wikipedia (oh God not Wikipedia!) then you'll find a plethora of premises which should satisfy you. While I'm on this rant, I wouldn't so far as to say that calculus is the most complex of all mathematical branches, as that is subjective to the beholder. A 6 year old could say addition and subtraction is the most complex thing they've ever seen. Also, I was exaggerating my claims with a hyperbolic expression, you took it far too seriously. BUT, while we're on the subject of statistics, my proofs of 0.999_ equaling 1 totals up to much more proofs than you can claim on paper. Practically, the statement is true. While it may not make sense from a logical point of view, in reality, that's all that matters. "Furthermore, my opponent's argument that .333 goes on forever is flawed, because it is a calculator value, not the true value. Again, 1/3 is actually 0.333 and one third." I don't see what you are trying to say here. Calculators can't input infinity, because it has no value. Therefore, CON saying that 1/3 is "actually 0.333 and one third" is false, because: 1. 1/3 is actually 0.333_ and so on... 2. You can't add a decimal ending in infinity to another ending in infinity "Continuing with my opponent's proof equation "scenario", it is not proper, because while it is true, I would again say that that does not conclude that .<PHONE>(forever and ever) equals 1/3. It doesn't prove it." If that equation cannot sustain your needs, then your words cannot sustain the given scenario. Words are not the same as numbers, either CON can start providing more mathematical proofs AGAINST 0.999_ = 1, or I am the victor. As I've mentioned earlier, semantics is the only way for CON to win, albeit I think I have established enough high ground, so please vote for me, PRO. Thank you. | 0 | Sorrow |
If a calculator cannot contrive the possibility of there being what you have stated, then how can humans possibly do so ourselves if we were the original inventors of the calculator? What separates a calculator's "mathematical conduct" and a human's "mathematical conduct"?
The only way for CON to win this argument is through a sophist's use of semantics. This mathematical conduct you speak of, would you please care to elaborate? Multiplying 1/3 by 3 would guarantee you precisely 1, as you have mentioned, but only because the fraction is IMPLIED as a whole number. If we were to take it piece-by-piece, which would be 0.33_, times that by three, then it cannot possibly equal 1, by logic. HOWEVER, the resulting 0.000_1 value is so small, it would have no use in mathematical equations. That's like saying subtracting infinity from infinity, or multiplying infinity by infinity, to reinforce my previous argument.
I do not see any theory here, just simple logistics. While indeed physicists employ calculus, what makes your physics professor have more merit than the word of a thousand other physics professors? Being a student myself, I know that there are at least a dozen ways of simplifying this equation in order for it to equal 1. I would not choose to go through that many variables, because it is time-consuming, but if you look at Wikipedia (oh God not Wikipedia!) then you'll find a plethora of premises which should satisfy you.
While I'm on this rant, I wouldn't so far as to say that calculus is the most complex of all mathematical branches, as that is subjective to the beholder. A 6 year old could say addition and subtraction is the most complex thing they've ever seen. Also, I was exaggerating my claims with a hyperbolic expression, you took it far too seriously. BUT, while we're on the subject of statistics, my proofs of 0.999_ equaling 1 totals up to much more proofs than you can claim on paper.
Practically, the statement is true. While it may not make sense from a logical point of view, in reality, that's all that matters.
"Furthermore, my opponent's argument that .333 goes on forever is flawed, because it is a calculator value, not the true value. Again, 1/3 is actually 0.333 and one third."
I don't see what you are trying to say here. Calculators can't input infinity, because it has no value. Therefore, CON saying that 1/3 is "actually 0.333 and one third" is false, because:
1. 1/3 is actually 0.333_ and so on...
2. You can't add a decimal ending in infinity to another ending in infinity
"Continuing with my opponent's proof equation "scenario", it is not proper, because while it is true, I would again say that that does not conclude that .9999999999(forever and ever) equals 1/3. It doesn't prove it."
If that equation cannot sustain your needs, then your words cannot sustain the given scenario. Words are not the same as numbers, either CON can start providing more mathematical proofs AGAINST 0.999_ = 1, or I am the victor.
As I've mentioned earlier, semantics is the only way for CON to win, albeit I think I have established enough high ground, so please vote for me, PRO.
Thank you. | Miscellaneous | 1 | .999-Repeating-is-Equal-to-1/1/ | 11 |
.(9)=1---Part 2! I would like to thank PoeJoe for bringing up the point that this is an auto-win, because he effectively instigated your challenge. I won't dig too deep into this in the first round, but just to give you some ammo to work with, the simplest proof goes like this: .(9)=?=1 /3 /3 .(3)=.(3) Simple division property of equality proves it here. I'll save the slightly more complex proofs for later arguments. Also, just a warning: When I debated this last time, my opponent used only empirical observations, and I think that hurt him, because you can't solely use empirical evidence when working with infinity, because infinity isn't a number, and it acts differently than numbers. you can use it to supplement your argument, but please do not use only empirical observations to "prove" your point. Looking forward to your argument! | 0 | abard124 |
.(9)=1---Part 2!
I would like to thank PoeJoe for bringing up the point that this is an auto-win, because he effectively instigated your challenge.
I won't dig too deep into this in the first round, but just to give you some ammo to work with, the simplest proof goes like this:
.(9)=?=1
/3 /3
.(3)=.(3)
Simple division property of equality proves it here. I'll save the slightly more complex proofs for later arguments.
Also, just a warning: When I debated this last time, my opponent used only empirical observations, and I think that hurt him, because you can't solely use empirical evidence when working with infinity, because infinity isn't a number, and it acts differently than numbers. you can use it to supplement your argument, but please do not use only empirical observations to "prove" your point.
Looking forward to your argument! | Miscellaneous | 0 | .99999...-repeating-is-equal-to-1/2/ | 41 |
Every fraction in the world can be written as a perfect decimal. These decimals are what we know as rational numbers. Rational numbers either terminate or repeat. 1/3 cannot be written as a terminating decimal, so it has to repeat. And like you said, so does .(9)/3. Also, like I said, empirical evidence doesn't really work with infinity. It works with numbers, but infinity isn't really a number, and it doesn't follow patterns. It's like the whole thing with an infinite number of monkeys and infinite typewriters, one would eventually write Shakespeare. The odds are so slim that if you had a reasonable number of monkeys, or even every monkey on earth, there's no way that one could crank out Shakespeare, but the moment you put infinity into the equation, that implies that every combination of characters will come out at least once. I know that that was a bit of a tangent, but I'm just trying to explain how infinity doesn't work the same as any number, and your empirical pattern is therefore null and void. I simply refuted your simple refutation of my simplest proof But if you still don't like my first one, try this: x=.(9) 10x=9.(9) -x 9x=9 x=1 Here's another. It does rely on empirical observations, but it does not rely on patterns to infinity. 1/9=.(1) 2/9=.(2) 3/9=.(3) 4/9=.(4) 5/9=.(5) 6/9=.(6) 7/9=.(7) 8/9=.(8) 9/9=??? Based on the pattern, shouldn't it be .(9)? But wouldn't simple logic tell you that it's 1? Well, they're both right, because it's the same number. Looking forward to your response! | 0 | abard124 |
Every fraction in the world can be written as a perfect decimal. These decimals are what we know as rational numbers. Rational numbers either terminate or repeat. 1/3 cannot be written as a terminating decimal, so it has to repeat. And like you said, so does .(9)/3.
Also, like I said, empirical evidence doesn't really work with infinity. It works with numbers, but infinity isn't really a number, and it doesn't follow patterns. It's like the whole thing with an infinite number of monkeys and infinite typewriters, one would eventually write Shakespeare. The odds are so slim that if you had a reasonable number of monkeys, or even every monkey on earth, there's no way that one could crank out Shakespeare, but the moment you put infinity into the equation, that implies that every combination of characters will come out at least once. I know that that was a bit of a tangent, but I'm just trying to explain how infinity doesn't work the same as any number, and your empirical pattern is therefore null and void. I simply refuted your simple refutation of my simplest proof
But if you still don't like my first one, try this:
x=.(9)
10x=9.(9)
-x
9x=9
x=1
Here's another. It does rely on empirical observations, but it does not rely on patterns to infinity.
1/9=.(1)
2/9=.(2)
3/9=.(3)
4/9=.(4)
5/9=.(5)
6/9=.(6)
7/9=.(7)
8/9=.(8)
9/9=???
Based on the pattern, shouldn't it be .(9)? But wouldn't simple logic tell you that it's 1? Well, they're both right, because it's the same number.
Looking forward to your response! | Miscellaneous | 1 | .99999...-repeating-is-equal-to-1/2/ | 42 |
First round acceptance. Second round, debate | 0 | futurepresident7 |
First round acceptance. Second round, debate | Miscellaneous | 0 | 0-can-technically-equal-1./1/ | 49 |
0, although it might seem crazy can equal 1. When you find a number's factorial, you are finding the product of all whole numbers less than or equal to it. For example, 3! (Factorial),=3*2*1,or 6 Now, google search "0!" or "0 factorial" What did it come out to? It came out to 1. 0!=0x0=0=1 Therefore, 0 can equal 1 (The YouTube channel Numberphile does a great video on this search on YouTube, "0!=1") Point 2:Physics Physics states that everything must come to an end. Numbers never end. Therefore, numbers do not exist in and of themselves. 0 and 1 are numbers Therefore, 0 and 1 do not exist Therefore, they both equal nothing Therefore, 0=1 Point 3: Symbols are not universal. 0 and 1 are symbols Aliens may use the symbols 0 and 1 to as synonyms The quantity we call ' 0' does not equal the quantity we call '1' For aliens, however, who is to say that whatvthey call '0' does not equal the quantity they call '1' I did not specify the Arabic Numeral version of these. Ok, let's assume that I did specify that they had to be the Arabic Numerals Point 4:The Multiverse Several theories state that every possible outcome encompasses its own theoretical universe. It may be possible that the Arabic Numeral System states that 0=1,making it its own universe. These theories cannot be disproved, so you cannot disprove that in these universes 0=1 These universes may have different physics where somehow, 0=1 Rebuttal: 0/0 technically is any number you want it to be, since any number*0=0 Using this, lets say that 0/0=1 1/1=1 If 1/1=1=0/0 0/0=0 possibly 1/1=1 0=1 If 0/1=0 0/0 (CAN TECHNICALLY)=0, since 0x0=0 So 0/0=0 and 0/1=0 The 0 and the 1 have to be the same for it to work, so 0=1 | 0 | futurepresident7 |
0, although it might seem crazy can equal 1. When you find a number's factorial, you are finding the product of all whole numbers less than or equal to it. For example, 3! (Factorial),=3*2*1,or 6 Now, google search "0!" or "0 factorial" What did it come out to? It came out to 1. 0!=0×0=0=1 Therefore, 0 can equal 1 (The YouTube channel Numberphile does a great video on this search on YouTube, "0!=1") Point 2:Physics Physics states that everything must come to an end. Numbers never end. Therefore, numbers do not exist in and of themselves. 0 and 1 are numbers Therefore, 0 and 1 do not exist Therefore, they both equal nothing Therefore, 0=1 Point 3: Symbols are not universal. 0 and 1 are symbols Aliens may use the symbols 0 and 1 to as synonyms The quantity we call ' 0' does not equal the quantity we call '1' For aliens, however, who is to say that whatvthey call '0' does not equal the quantity they call '1' I did not specify the Arabic Numeral version of these. Ok, let's assume that I did specify that they had to be the Arabic Numerals Point 4:The Multiverse Several theories state that every possible outcome encompasses its own theoretical universe. It may be possible that the Arabic Numeral System states that 0=1,making it its own universe. These theories cannot be disproved, so you cannot disprove that in these universes 0=1 These universes may have different physics where somehow, 0=1 Rebuttal: 0/0 technically is any number you want it to be, since any number*0=0 Using this, lets say that 0/0=1 1/1=1 If 1/1=1=0/0 0/0=0 possibly 1/1=1 0=1 If 0/1=0 0/0 (CAN TECHNICALLY)=0, since 0×0=0 So 0/0=0 and 0/1=0 The 0 and the 1 have to be the same for it to work, so 0=1 | Miscellaneous | 1 | 0-can-technically-equal-1./1/ | 50 |
I think that 0 isn't technically equals to zero and I can prove it .... See, 1/1= 1 ---------------(i) Now if 0 is equal to 1 then, 0/0= not defined --------------------because if we divide any number by 0 then it is not defined-------------------(ii) From (i) and (ii) 1= not defined But 1 is defined number as every number can be divide and multiplied by it Hence, proved | 0 | sharang123 |
I think that 0 isn't technically equals to zero and I can prove it
....
See,
1/1= 1 ---------------(i)
Now if 0 is equal to 1 then,
0/0= not defined --------------------because if we divide any number by 0 then it is not defined-------------------(ii)
From (i) and (ii)
1= not defined
But 1 is defined number as every number can be divide and multiplied by it
Hence, proved | Miscellaneous | 0 | 0-can-technically-equal-1./1/ | 51 |
My friend you are been confused by your own self I agree with 0!=1, zero factorial is equal to 1 , but zero isn't equal to one . I can prove it , If you want to say that 0=1,then Let's see 0=1 And 0!=1 0x0=1 But if we see minutely zero is multiplied only on one side of equal sign So we have to multiply it on both side 0x0=1x0 0=0 Hence zero is equal to zero but not equal to one Again as per your point 2 Physics states that everything must come to an end But the universe never ends Do you wanna say that universe do not exsist? In my terms that rule is not applicable for numbers Hence 1 exists but 0 doesn't Therefore, 1 is not equal to 0 Now your point 3 is not up to mark It seems that you are confused by your self 0 And 1 are used In Encoding They are not symbols , instead they are used to mark existence of matter by counting ! And secondly the numeral 0 was invented in India if 0 wasn't there then the numeral system had been collapse If you say that 0=1 then why is the need of inventing zero . We could place 1 in place of 0 Hence 0can't take place of 1 and hence are not equal There you go wrote g in point 4 1/1 = 1 But 0/0 is not defined Hence your point 4 is meaningless | 0 | sharang123 |
My friend you are been confused by your own self
I agree with 0!=1, zero factorial is equal to 1 , but zero isn't equal to one .
I can prove it ,
If you want to say that 0=1,then
Let's see
0=1
And
0!=1
0x0=1
But if we see minutely zero is multiplied only on one side of equal sign
So we have to multiply it on both side
0x0=1x0
0=0
Hence zero is equal to zero but not equal to one
Again as per your point 2
Physics states that everything must come to an end
But the universe never ends
Do you wanna say that universe do not exsist?
In my terms that rule is not applicable for numbers
Hence 1 exists but 0 doesn't
Therefore, 1 is not equal to 0
Now your point 3 is not up to mark
It seems that you are confused by your self
0 And 1 are used In Encoding
They are not symbols , instead they are used to mark existence of matter by counting !
And secondly the numeral 0 was invented in India
if 0 wasn't there then the numeral system had been collapse
If you say that 0=1 then why is the need of inventing zero . We could place 1 in place of 0
Hence 0can't take place of 1 and hence are not equal
There you go wrote g in point 4
1/1 = 1
But 0/0 is not defined
Hence your point 4 is meaningless | Miscellaneous | 1 | 0-can-technically-equal-1./1/ | 52 |
I think 0 is an even number so I think it is neither neutral or odd. | 0 | Chunkymilk |
I think 0 is an even number so I think it is neither neutral or odd. | Miscellaneous | 0 | 0-is-an-even-number./1/ | 53 |
If you follow the pattern 3 is odd 2 is even 1 is odd so 0 is even. This just makes sense to me but I do not understand why people think it is neutral. Also, the definition of odd is an integer is even if it is 'evenly divisible' by two and odd if it is not even according to Wikipedia and Google. 0 divided by 2 equals zero therefore zero is neither neutral nor odd. This is the definition and the definition is what the word means and cannot be changed! | 0 | Chunkymilk |
If you follow the pattern 3 is odd 2 is even 1 is odd so 0 is even. This just makes sense to me but I do not understand why people think it is neutral.
Also, the definition of odd is an integer is even if it is 'evenly divisible' by two and odd if it is not even according to Wikipedia and Google. 0 divided by 2 equals zero therefore zero is neither neutral nor odd. This is the definition and the definition is what the word means and cannot be changed! | Miscellaneous | 1 | 0-is-an-even-number./1/ | 54 |
First of all I understand Wikipedia is not always trustworthy. That is why I looked at the Google definition. If this is not enough Mathworld.wolfram.com/EvenNumber.html agrees that zero is an even number. This is stated in the second sentence. Second of all, you have not shown any prove that 0 is a neutral number. As long as it is divisible by two it is even. 0 is divisible by two. What do you not get about the definition. 0 divided by 2 equals 0. It is an integer that divides evenly into a whole number. | 0 | Chunkymilk |
First of all I understand Wikipedia is not always trustworthy. That is why I looked at the Google definition. If this is not enough Mathworld.wolfram.com/EvenNumber.html agrees that zero is an even number. This is stated in the second sentence.
Second of all, you have not shown any prove that 0 is a neutral number. As long as it is divisible by two it is even. 0 is divisible by two. What do you not get about the definition. 0 divided by 2 equals 0. It is an integer that divides evenly into a whole number. | Miscellaneous | 2 | 0-is-an-even-number./1/ | 55 |
0 is not an even number or a odd number it is neutral (not helping or supporting either side) basically zero is neutral, because its not positive or negative. its also in between positive and negative integers. | 0 | pensfan |
0 is not an even number or a odd number it is neutral (not helping or supporting either side) basically zero is neutral, because its not positive or negative. its also in between positive and negative integers. | Miscellaneous | 0 | 0-is-an-even-number./1/ | 56 |
first of all you can't trust Wikipedia because anyone can go on there and change the answers. second of all 0 is a neutral number because it is in between negative and positive numbers, and it is not negative or positive. therefore it is neither even nor odd. | 0 | pensfan |
first of all you can't trust Wikipedia because anyone can go on there and change the answers. second of all 0 is a neutral number because it is in between negative and positive numbers, and it is not negative or positive. therefore it is neither even nor odd. | Miscellaneous | 1 | 0-is-an-even-number./1/ | 57 |
My proof for zero being neutral is that it is not negative nor positive (as I stated before) it is in-between positive and negative integers. Your second point is a false statement. zero divided by any number on a calculator = error. meaning that it can't be divided. zero does not correspond to anything in reality, because zero signifies the absence of reality. therefor zero is not divisible by 2 or any other number. | 0 | pensfan |
My proof for zero being neutral is that it is not negative nor positive (as I stated before) it is in-between positive and negative integers. Your second point is a false statement. zero divided by any number on a calculator = error. meaning that it can't be divided. zero does not correspond to anything in reality, because zero signifies the absence of reality. therefor zero is not divisible by 2 or any other number. | Miscellaneous | 2 | 0-is-an-even-number./1/ | 58 |
.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is not equal to .9999999999999999999999999999999999999998, by reason that two values, structures, objects, concepts, or any measurably comparable entity, however similar in structure they may be, must retain ALL characteristics of one another to be 2 of the same entity. Therefore, 0.9999(repeating) is NOT EQUAL to 1. | 0 | Ryvn |
.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is not equal to .9999999999999999999999999999999999999998, by reason that two values, structures, objects, concepts, or any measurably comparable entity, however similar in structure they may be, must retain ALL characteristics of one another to be 2 of the same entity.
Therefore, 0.9999(repeating) is NOT EQUAL to 1. | Science | 0 | 0.999..-repeating-is-equal-to-1/1/ | 76 |
I am arguing that 0.9999... (going on forever) is equal to 1. My challenger is arguing that this is false. He may use the first round to make his argument. | 1 | The_Tom |
I am arguing that 0.9999... (going on forever) is equal to 1. My challenger is arguing that this is false. He may use the first round to make his argument. | Science | 0 | 0.999..-repeating-is-equal-to-1/1/ | 77 |
0.9999... = 1 (Note ... means repeating) This is a mathematically proven fact which most people find hard to believe. I will try an convince the readers that this is indeed a fact. My opponent claims "two values, structures, objects, concepts, or any measurably comparable entity, however similar in structure they may be, must retain ALL characteristics of one another to be 2 of the same entity." There are many ways to write the number 1: (4/2), (5 - 4), (0.25 x 4), these don't have all the same characteristics as each other, but they are all ways of writing the number 1 Here I will attempt to prove that 0.9... is another way of writing 1 Logical Proof: If there is no difference between two numbers then they are logically the same number So, 1 - 0.999999.... = 0.000000... Hence, they are the same number. Please note that because there are an infinite number of 9's, that there will be an infinite number of 0's Another way of saying this is that if you cannot fit a number between two other numbers, there is no difference between them. Proof using arithmetic: 1/3 = 0.333333... 0.333333... x 3 = 0.99999... And (1/3) x 3 = 1 Therefore 0.99999... = 1 Algebraic proof: Z = 0.999999... (multiply by 10) 10Z = 9.99999... (subtract Z from both sides) 10Z - 1Z = 9.99999... - 0.99999.. (reduce) 9Z = 9 (divide by 9) Z = 1 Here Z has started as 0.999 repeating, and has ended up as 1 Therefore 0.99999... = 1 I am sure that my opponent will argue that there will always be an infinitely small difference between .999.. and 1. I will refute that argument here: The rules of infinity: It is an accepted mathematical fact that an infinitely small number is equal to zero (1). Another way of writing this is (1/infinity = 0) Therefore, THERE IS NO GAP BETWEEN 0.999... AND 1 This seems counter-intuitive, but it has been proven true (2)(3). For other mathematical proofs and in depth explanations why, follow my references, or do a quick google search for "0.9 repeating = 1". References: 1. <URL>... (x)%3D+1/x+as+x+approaches+positive+infinity 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... | 1 | The_Tom |
0.9999... = 1
(Note ... means repeating)
This is a mathematically proven fact which most people find hard to believe. I will try an convince the readers that this is indeed a fact.
My opponent claims "two values, structures, objects, concepts, or any measurably comparable entity, however similar in structure they may be, must retain ALL characteristics of one another to be 2 of the same entity."
There are many ways to write the number 1: (4/2), (5 - 4), (0.25 x 4), these don't have all the same characteristics as each other, but they are all ways of writing the number 1
Here I will attempt to prove that 0.9... is another way of writing 1
Logical Proof:
If there is no difference between two numbers then they are logically the same number
So, 1 - 0.999999.... = 0.000000...
Hence, they are the same number. Please note that because there are an infinite number of 9's, that there will be an infinite number of 0's
Another way of saying this is that if you cannot fit a number between two other numbers, there is no difference between them.
Proof using arithmetic:
1/3 = 0.333333...
0.333333... x 3 = 0.99999...
And (1/3) x 3 = 1
Therefore 0.99999... = 1
Algebraic proof:
Z = 0.999999...
(multiply by 10)
10Z = 9.99999...
(subtract Z from both sides)
10Z - 1Z = 9.99999... - 0.99999..
(reduce)
9Z = 9
(divide by 9)
Z = 1
Here Z has started as 0.999 repeating, and has ended up as 1
Therefore 0.99999... = 1
I am sure that my opponent will argue that there will always be an infinitely small difference between .999.. and 1. I will refute that argument here:
The rules of infinity:
It is an accepted mathematical fact that an infinitely small number is equal to zero (1). Another way of writing this is
(1/infinity = 0)
Therefore, THERE IS NO GAP BETWEEN 0.999... AND 1
This seems counter-intuitive, but it has been proven true (2)(3). For other mathematical proofs and in depth explanations why, follow my references, or do a quick google search for "0.9 repeating = 1".
References:
1. http://www.wolframalpha.com... (x)%3D+1/x+as+x+approaches+positive+infinity
2. https://www.khanacademy.org...
3. http://polymathematics.typepad.com... | Science | 1 | 0.999..-repeating-is-equal-to-1/1/ | 78 |
Well, since my opponent didn't refute me, I will refute myself. Dear the_tom, in the previous round you had stated that 4/2 is another way of writing 1. Well let me just say sir, this is blatantly incorrect! Not only this, but the number one looks bigger than 0.999.. therefore your proof is null! Seriously though, arguing with yourself is not fun, so I leave the floor to my opponent. | 1 | The_Tom |
Well, since my opponent didn't refute me, I will refute myself.
Dear the_tom, in the previous round you had stated that 4/2 is another way of writing 1. Well let me just say sir, this is blatantly incorrect! Not only this, but the number one looks bigger than 0.999.. therefore your proof is null!
Seriously though, arguing with yourself is not fun, so I leave the floor to my opponent. | Science | 2 | 0.999..-repeating-is-equal-to-1/1/ | 79 |
The out of context absolute that we have for our resolution is, as an absolute, false. 1 pair of shoes equals 2 shoes. 1 pint equals 2 cups in United States fluid volume measurement. If units were predefined in the resolution, it could probably be fixed, but 1 of a given unit can occasionally equal 2 of another given unit. | 1 | Ragnar_Rahl |
The out of context absolute that we have for our resolution is, as an absolute, false.
1 pair of shoes equals 2 shoes.
1 pint equals 2 cups in United States fluid volume measurement.
If units were predefined in the resolution, it could probably be fixed, but 1 of a given unit can occasionally equal 2 of another given unit. | Miscellaneous | 0 | 1-does-not-2/1/ | 139 |
Well, unfortunately, such ambiguities in resolutions should be resolved before debates if one wishes them to go in one's favor. :) | 1 | Ragnar_Rahl |
Well, unfortunately, such ambiguities in resolutions should be resolved before debates if one wishes them to go in one's favor. :) | Miscellaneous | 1 | 1-does-not-2/1/ | 140 |
Kentucky fried? | 1 | Ragnar_Rahl |
Kentucky fried? | Miscellaneous | 2 | 1-does-not-2/1/ | 141 |
Good lawd | 1 | Ragnar_Rahl |
Good lawd | Miscellaneous | 3 | 1-does-not-2/1/ | 142 |
Finalmente | 1 | Ragnar_Rahl |
Finalmente | Miscellaneous | 4 | 1-does-not-2/1/ | 143 |
1+1=2 subtract 1 from each side (1+1)-1=2-1 multiply by a, a=1.999 repeating {(1+1)-1}A=[2-1]A 0=0 therefore, 1.999 repeating = 2, because 1.999 feet is pretty close to 2 feet | 0 | Rob1Billion |
1+1=2
subtract 1 from each side
(1+1)-1=2-1
multiply by a, a=1.999 repeating
{(1+1)-1}A=[2-1]A
0=0
therefore, 1.999 repeating = 2, because 1.999 feet is pretty close to 2 feet | Science | 0 | 1.999-repeating-2/1/ | 155 |
All rhetoric (j/k everything on here is all rhetoric). There is no reason why a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number. Your definitions are great, but they don't necessarily preclude any possibility that the two could be equal to each other, only that the two cannot be IDENTICAL to each other. Tarzan's proof is rock solid and your semantical arguments are attempts at struggling to find any way you can not to believe something that is hard to accept. A board that is 1.999 repeating feet long is just as long as a board that is 2 feet long, because you can never identify the difference in length. How much less than 2 is 1.999 repeating? If they are in fact different values, than you should be able to extrapolate the difference between them. Also, a full third is 0.333 repeating. But if you simply look at the number, 0.333 repeating SEEMS like it is *just* a little less than a third, because the numbers don't do it justice, in the same way that 1.999 repeating doesn't quite do justice to represent 2. If you multiply .333 repeating by 3 you get .999 repeating, which is equal to 1 because three thirds are a whole. A=1.999 repeating multiply by 10 10A=19.999... subtract A from both sides 9A=18 <----- this is the part most people are uneasy about. but 19.999... minus 1.999... is equal to 18. How can you refute this? divide by 9 A=2 elementary, my dear watson How can you not add a repeating decimal??? Does this mean I can't add three thirds to get a whole? Aren't all numbers repeating decimals, with zeros on each end? | 0 | Rob1Billion |
All rhetoric (j/k everything on here is all rhetoric). There is no reason why a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number. Your definitions are great, but they don't necessarily preclude any possibility that the two could be equal to each other, only that the two cannot be IDENTICAL to each other. Tarzan's proof is rock solid and your semantical arguments are attempts at struggling to find any way you can not to believe something that is hard to accept. A board that is 1.999 repeating feet long is just as long as a board that is 2 feet long, because you can never identify the difference in length. How much less than 2 is 1.999 repeating? If they are in fact different values, than you should be able to extrapolate the difference between them. Also, a full third is 0.333 repeating. But if you simply look at the number, 0.333 repeating SEEMS like it is *just* a little less than a third, because the numbers don't do it justice, in the same way that 1.999 repeating doesn't quite do justice to represent 2. If you multiply .333 repeating by 3 you get .999 repeating, which is equal to 1 because three thirds are a whole.
A=1.999 repeating
multiply by 10
10A=19.999...
subtract A from both sides
9A=18 <----- this is the part most people are uneasy about. but 19.999... minus 1.999... is equal to 18. How can you refute this?
divide by 9
A=2
elementary, my dear watson
How can you not add a repeating decimal??? Does this mean I can't add three thirds to get a whole? Aren't all numbers repeating decimals, with zeros on each end? | Science | 1 | 1.999-repeating-2/1/ | 156 |
Your best argument is an inability to do the addition/subtraction to get the result in the proof. But this makes no sense. Addition cannot be undefined in this way, because we work with these numbers all the time. A third plus a third is two thirds. The fact that a third equals a repeating number does not automatically mean that a third is undefined and you can't add it. You try and make a distinction BETWEEN a third and 1.999 rep., because you can't divide two numbers to get it, but that leads us back to the same old argument: why can't a rational number not be equal to an irrational number? I still believe that your arguments are just not as convincing as Tarzan's proof is. You say that 19.999 repeating minus 1.999 repeating is equal to 18.000 repeating plus one. Maybe I should instruct you on what infinity is, so that you don't botch it in our debate. Infinity goes on forever, so you would never have the chance to put that one in there, and besides, I don't see any reason AT ALL to even think that there MIGHT be a one at the end anyway. your definition did not include that a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number. You say that it can't but us debaters on here are probably not just going to take your word for it. Saying that I could check it in a math book is not enough to show your case. Give us some exact wording that can be cross checked so that we can indeed see that a rational number can never be equal to an irrational number. your definitions are simply not as convincing as actually doing the math, kennard. The math works, and your definitions seem somewhat indirect and possibly misinterpreted. If my opinion of tarzan's proof is subjective, then so is your interpretation and application of your definitions. I fail to see why your position is one of objectivity and mine is one of subjectivity. "I am pretty sure I wouldn't be able to identify the difference between a board that is 1.88 feet long and a board that is 2 feet long." Why did you write this? The difference is .12 feet. If you meant to say 1.888 repeating, then the difference is .111 repeating feet. This is such a bad argument that I am hoping you just mistyped something in there, otherwise the fact that you can't see something that is over an inch long is your error, not tarzan's. 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 =1, just like 0.333 rep. + 0.333 rep. + 0.333 rep. =1 . This leads to the conclusion that 0.333 rep. must be equal to that number that is *just* a little higher (~0.3334) that would more satisfyingly represent a full third, in the same way that 1.999 rep. represents that number that is *just* a little higher that is 2. | 0 | Rob1Billion |
Your best argument is an inability to do the addition/subtraction to get the result in the proof. But this makes no sense. Addition cannot be undefined in this way, because we work with these numbers all the time. A third plus a third is two thirds. The fact that a third equals a repeating number does not automatically mean that a third is undefined and you can't add it. You try and make a distinction BETWEEN a third and 1.999 rep., because you can't divide two numbers to get it, but that leads us back to the same old argument: why can't a rational number not be equal to an irrational number?
I still believe that your arguments are just not as convincing as Tarzan's proof is. You say that 19.999 repeating minus 1.999 repeating is equal to 18.000 repeating plus one. Maybe I should instruct you on what infinity is, so that you don't botch it in our debate. Infinity goes on forever, so you would never have the chance to put that one in there, and besides, I don't see any reason AT ALL to even think that there MIGHT be a one at the end anyway.
your definition did not include that a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number. You say that it can't but us debaters on here are probably not just going to take your word for it. Saying that I could check it in a math book is not enough to show your case. Give us some exact wording that can be cross checked so that we can indeed see that a rational number can never be equal to an irrational number.
your definitions are simply not as convincing as actually doing the math, kennard. The math works, and your definitions seem somewhat indirect and possibly misinterpreted.
If my opinion of tarzan's proof is subjective, then so is your interpretation and application of your definitions. I fail to see why your position is one of objectivity and mine is one of subjectivity.
"I am pretty sure I wouldn't be able to identify the difference between a board that is 1.88 feet long and a board that is 2 feet long." Why did you write this? The difference is .12 feet. If you meant to say 1.888 repeating, then the difference is .111 repeating feet. This is such a bad argument that I am hoping you just mistyped something in there, otherwise the fact that you can't see something that is over an inch long is your error, not tarzan's.
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 =1, just like 0.333 rep. + 0.333 rep. + 0.333 rep. =1 . This leads to the conclusion that 0.333 rep. must be equal to that number that is *just* a little higher (~0.3334) that would more satisfyingly represent a full third, in the same way that 1.999 rep. represents that number that is *just* a little higher that is 2. | Science | 2 | 1.999-repeating-2/1/ | 157 |
Your arguments do make some sense to me, as a non-mathematician, but when I look back at the proof I am still not convinced that you can't subtract 1.999 rep. from 19.999 rep. to make 18. Your wiki references did not say "a rational number can never equal an irrational number", unless you can direct me to the spot they do. Also, please give me some evidence that specifically says that you absolutely cannot subtract a rep. decimal, especially when it is simply to cancel out a similar rep. decimal. With all the tricks mathematicians use to find answers, I have a hard time believeing that this one is not in their arsenal. | 0 | Rob1Billion |
Your arguments do make some sense to me, as a non-mathematician, but when I look back at the proof I am still not convinced that you can't subtract 1.999 rep. from 19.999 rep. to make 18. Your wiki references did not say "a rational number can never equal an irrational number", unless you can direct me to the spot they do. Also, please give me some evidence that specifically says that you absolutely cannot subtract a rep. decimal, especially when it is simply to cancel out a similar rep. decimal. With all the tricks mathematicians use to find answers, I have a hard time believeing that this one is not in their arsenal. | Science | 3 | 1.999-repeating-2/1/ | 158 |
Well there is tension in a lot of debates. The ones about religion can get really bad... That is actually the reason I took this debate, because since I am not a mathematician I could do this without caring TOO much about it, and joke around a little in the process. As far as your argument goes, I would say that I have run out of good arguments about 4 rounds ago and I am just holding on for the sake of it! I would really like to ask an older, more educated math professor about this, but that is the thing: the most respected math teacher I know at my university did Tarzan's exact proof on the board for us in class! I ended up failing out of calc 2 and ditching math afterwards... Honestly, my opinion is of no consequence and I only argued this case for the sake of arguing, and because people in the comments section seemed to be egging it on some. Otherwise, good debate, you DID make some good points... | 0 | Rob1Billion |
Well there is tension in a lot of debates. The ones about religion can get really bad... That is actually the reason I took this debate, because since I am not a mathematician I could do this without caring TOO much about it, and joke around a little in the process. As far as your argument goes, I would say that I have run out of good arguments about 4 rounds ago and I am just holding on for the sake of it! I would really like to ask an older, more educated math professor about this, but that is the thing: the most respected math teacher I know at my university did Tarzan's exact proof on the board for us in class! I ended up failing out of calc 2 and ditching math afterwards... Honestly, my opinion is of no consequence and I only argued this case for the sake of arguing, and because people in the comments section seemed to be egging it on some. Otherwise, good debate, you DID make some good points... | Science | 4 | 1.999-repeating-2/1/ | 159 |
My main point in this argument is that 1.9999 repeating CANNOT equal 2 because 1.999 repeating is an irrational number, while the number 2 is a rational number. Since a number cannot be rational and irrational at the same time, then 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal 2. The definition of a rational number is a number that can be expressed as a fraction (or ratio) p/q where p and q are integers and q is not equal to zero. The definition of an irrational number is a number that cannot be expressed as a fraction p/q for any integers p and q. The number 2 is obviously a rational number, since, it can be written as 8/4 (since 8 divided by 4 equals 2). However, there are no two integers p and q, that divided (or which ratio) give 1.999 repeating. We should realize that there are other repeating decimals such as 0.333 repeating, 0.666 repeating, or 1.333 repeating that CAN be written as ratios of two integers, and therefore are rational numbers. For the numbers given above this would be: 0.333 repeating = 1/3 0.666 repeating = 2/3 1.333 repeating = 4/3 As we can easily see, by dividing 1 by 3, we get 0.333 repeating. I want to point out that the number of times that the divisor (the number 3 for this case) is contained in the dividend (the number 1 for this case) is zero. Therefore, the first number in performing the division is 0. and then as we keep performing the division we get 0.3, 0.33, 0.333, etc. This shows that 1/3 equals 0.333 repeating. Similar reason can be used with 0.666 repeating and 1.333 repeating. However, if we divide 6 by 3 (for example) we can only obtain 2. It is impossible to obtain 1.999 repeating by dividing 6 by 3 since the number of times that the divisor (the number 3 for this case) is contained in the dividend (the number 6 for this case) is 2. This shows that it is impossible to obtain the number 1 as the first term in the number 1.999 repeating. Since there are no two integer numbers whose ratio gives 1.999 repating then we must conclude this is an irrational number, and as stated above, that 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal the number 2. As a final note, I will like to indicate that operations such as addition, multiplication, substraction, and division are undefined for repeating decimals such as 0.333 repeating or 0.999 repeating. This operations are defined for fractions, but not for repeating decimals. Hence this operations cannot be used to prove that 0.999 repeating equals 2. Thanks. | 0 | kennard |
My main point in this argument is that 1.9999 repeating CANNOT equal 2 because 1.999 repeating is an irrational number, while the number 2 is a rational number. Since a number cannot be rational and irrational at the same time, then 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal 2.
The definition of a rational number is a number that can be expressed as a fraction (or ratio) p/q where p and q are integers and q is not equal to zero.
The definition of an irrational number is a number that cannot be expressed as a fraction p/q for any integers p and q.
The number 2 is obviously a rational number, since, it can be written as 8/4 (since 8 divided by 4 equals 2).
However, there are no two integers p and q, that divided (or which ratio) give 1.999 repeating. We should realize that there are other repeating decimals such as 0.333 repeating, 0.666 repeating, or 1.333 repeating that CAN be written as ratios of two integers, and therefore are rational numbers. For the numbers given above this would be:
0.333 repeating = 1/3
0.666 repeating = 2/3
1.333 repeating = 4/3
As we can easily see, by dividing 1 by 3, we get 0.333 repeating. I want to point out that the number of times that the divisor (the number 3 for this case) is contained in the dividend (the number 1 for this case) is zero. Therefore, the first number in performing the division is 0. and then as we keep performing the division we get 0.3, 0.33, 0.333, etc. This shows that 1/3 equals 0.333 repeating. Similar reason can be used with 0.666 repeating and 1.333 repeating.
However, if we divide 6 by 3 (for example) we can only obtain 2. It is impossible to obtain 1.999 repeating by dividing 6 by 3 since the number of times that the divisor (the number 3 for this case) is contained in the dividend (the number 6 for this case) is 2. This shows that it is impossible to obtain the number 1 as the first term in the number 1.999 repeating. Since there are no two integer numbers whose ratio gives 1.999 repating then we must conclude this is an irrational number, and as stated above, that 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal the number 2.
As a final note, I will like to indicate that operations such as addition, multiplication, substraction, and division are undefined for repeating decimals such as 0.333 repeating or 0.999 repeating. This operations are defined for fractions, but not for repeating decimals. Hence this operations cannot be used to prove that 0.999 repeating equals 2. Thanks. | Science | 0 | 1.999-repeating-2/1/ | 160 |
First of all, I want to indicate that this is not a philosophical debate. This is a mathematical debate, and anyone that has taken a course involving mathematical proof knows that definitions in mathematics are the basis or building blocks of any proof. You indicated that: "There is no reason why a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number". By mathematical definition (not philosophical), an irrational number cannot be equal to a rational number. You can check this definition in any mathematics book. You indicated that: "Your definitions are great, but they don't necessarily preclude any possibility that the two could be equal to each other, only that the two cannot be IDENTICAL to each other". Well, first of all, there are not "my" definitions of rational and irrational numbers. This are the definitions that have been established for a long time, you can find them in any math book, and all mathematicians agree with them. And the definition clearly indicates that an irrational number cannot be equal to a rational number. Again, this is a mathematical debate, not a philosophical one were people can debate whether an apple can equal to an orange or whatever. You indicated that: "Tarzan's proof is rock solid and your semantical arguments are attempts at struggling to find any way you can not to believe something that is hard to accept". I don't see how your subjective opinion is PROOF that 1.999 repeating equals 2. You indicated that: "A board that is 1.999 repeating feet long is just as long as a board that is 2 feet long, because you can never identify the difference in length. How much less than 2 is 1.999 repeating? If they are in fact different values, than you should be able to extrapolate the difference between them" The fact that I cannot identify the difference between a 1.999 repeating feet board and a 2 feet board does not mean these two are equal. Using your logic, then 1.88 is equal to 2 as well, since I am pretty sure I wouldn't be able to identify the difference between a board that is 1.88 feet long and a board that is 2 feet long. You indicated that: "Also, a full third is 0.333 repeating. But if you simply look at the number, 0.333 repeating SEEMS like it is *just* a little less than a third, because the numbers don't do it justice, in the same way that 1.999 repeating doesn't quite do justice to represent 2" I indicated above that 0.333 repeating comes from the ratio of two integers, namely 1/3. If you calculate this ratio, and divide 1 by 3, you get 0.333 repeating. Therefore this shows clearly that 1/3 equals 0.333 repeating, and that 0.333 repeating is a rational number. You indicated that: "If you multiply .333 repeating by 3 you get .999 repeating, which is equal to 1 because three thirds are a whole" This is the origin of the problem, repeating numbers cannot be multiplied by integers since this operation is undefined in a similar way that 1/0 (one divided by zero, not the limit, just the number one divided by zero) is undefined. What I mean by "repeating numbers cannot be multiplied by integers" is that there is no mathematical definition or property that indicates that 3*0.333 repeating = 0.999 repeating, and you cannot get from one point to the other by using mathematical properties or definitions. However, you could show that 2*0.333 repeating equals 0.666 repeating by using the following mathematical properties: 2*0.333 repeating = 2*(1/3) This comes from the mathematical definition of dividing 1 by 3 = (2*1)/3 Associative property of multiplication = 2/3 Identity property of multiplication = 0.666 repeating This comes from the mathematical definition of dividing 2 by 3 The problem that arises with 0.999 repeating is that you cannot obtain it by dividing any two integers. Therefore you CANNOT show that 3*0.333 repeating = 0.999 repeating. You indicated that: "How can you not add a repeating decimal??? Does this mean I can't add three thirds to get a whole? Aren't all numbers repeating decimals, with zeros on each end?" As I indicated, you cannot add, multiply, substract, or divided, repeating numbers directly using math properties. There are properties that allow you to do this operations on integers or fractions, but not on repeating (or infinite numbers). And yes, all numbers can be written as repeating numbers, but the difference is that if you can write a repeating number as an integer or a fraction then you can perform addition, multiplication, substraction, or division on these forms of the number (NOTE: all numbers can be written as repeating numbers, however not all of them can be written with zeros at the end). In Tarzan's proof the flaw is in the fact that he multiplies 10 by A, then substracts A, and gets 18. What you should really get if you perform 10*A minus A, you will get 18.0000...(infinite zeros)...0001 As you can see, there will always be a one at the end of this infinite number (I know that for the human brain this is hard to grasp, but that is infinity). | 0 | kennard |
First of all, I want to indicate that this is not a philosophical debate. This is a mathematical debate, and anyone that has taken a course involving mathematical proof knows that definitions in mathematics are the basis or building blocks of any proof.
You indicated that: "There is no reason why a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number".
By mathematical definition (not philosophical), an irrational number cannot be equal to a rational number. You can check this definition in any mathematics book.
You indicated that: "Your definitions are great, but they don't necessarily preclude any possibility that the two could be equal to each other, only that the two cannot be IDENTICAL to each other".
Well, first of all, there are not "my" definitions of rational and irrational numbers. This are the definitions that have been established for a long time, you can find them in any math book, and all mathematicians agree with them. And the definition clearly indicates that an irrational number cannot be equal to a rational number. Again, this is a mathematical debate, not a philosophical one were people can debate whether an apple can equal to an orange or whatever.
You indicated that: "Tarzan's proof is rock solid and your semantical arguments are attempts at struggling to find any way you can not to believe something that is hard to accept".
I don't see how your subjective opinion is PROOF that 1.999 repeating equals 2.
You indicated that: "A board that is 1.999 repeating feet long is just as long as a board that is 2 feet long, because you can never identify the difference in length. How much less than 2 is 1.999 repeating? If they are in fact different values, than you should be able to extrapolate the difference between them"
The fact that I cannot identify the difference between a 1.999 repeating feet board and a 2 feet board does not mean these two are equal. Using your logic, then 1.88 is equal to 2 as well, since I am pretty sure I wouldn't be able to identify the difference between a board that is 1.88 feet long and a board that is 2 feet long.
You indicated that: "Also, a full third is 0.333 repeating. But if you simply look at the number, 0.333 repeating SEEMS like it is *just* a little less than a third, because the numbers don't do it justice, in the same way that 1.999 repeating doesn't quite do justice to represent 2"
I indicated above that 0.333 repeating comes from the ratio of two integers, namely 1/3. If you calculate this ratio, and divide 1 by 3, you get 0.333 repeating. Therefore this shows clearly that 1/3 equals 0.333 repeating, and that 0.333 repeating is a rational number.
You indicated that: "If you multiply .333 repeating by 3 you get .999 repeating, which is equal to 1 because three thirds are a whole"
This is the origin of the problem, repeating numbers cannot be multiplied by integers since this operation is undefined in a similar way that 1/0 (one divided by zero, not the limit, just the number one divided by zero) is undefined. What I mean by "repeating numbers cannot be multiplied by integers" is that there is no mathematical definition or property that indicates that 3*0.333 repeating = 0.999 repeating, and you cannot get from one point to the other by using mathematical properties or definitions. However, you could show that 2*0.333 repeating equals 0.666 repeating by using the following mathematical properties:
2*0.333 repeating = 2*(1/3) This comes from the mathematical
definition of dividing 1 by 3
= (2*1)/3 Associative property of
multiplication
= 2/3 Identity property of multiplication
= 0.666 repeating This comes from the mathematical
definition of dividing 2 by 3
The problem that arises with 0.999 repeating is that you cannot obtain it by dividing any two integers. Therefore you CANNOT show that 3*0.333 repeating = 0.999 repeating.
You indicated that: "How can you not add a repeating decimal??? Does this mean I can't add three thirds to get a whole? Aren't all numbers repeating decimals, with zeros on each end?"
As I indicated, you cannot add, multiply, substract, or divided, repeating numbers directly using math properties. There are properties that allow you to do this operations on integers or fractions, but not on repeating (or infinite numbers). And yes, all numbers can be written as repeating numbers, but the difference is that if you can write a repeating number as an integer or a fraction then you can perform addition, multiplication, substraction, or division on these forms of the number (NOTE: all numbers can be written as repeating numbers, however not all of them can be written with zeros at the end).
In Tarzan's proof the flaw is in the fact that he multiplies 10 by A, then substracts A, and gets 18. What you should really get if you perform 10*A minus A, you will get 18.0000...(infinite zeros)...0001
As you can see, there will always be a one at the end of this infinite number (I know that for the human brain this is hard to grasp, but that is infinity). | Science | 1 | 1.999-repeating-2/1/ | 161 |
You wrote the following two statements: "why can't a rational number not be equal to an irrational number?" and "your definition did not include that a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number. You say that it can't but us debaters on here are probably not just going to take your word for it. Saying that I could check it in a math book is not enough to show your case. Give us some exact wording that can be cross checked so that we can indeed see that a rational number can never be equal to an irrational number." The definition of a rational number is a number that CAN be expressed as a ratio of two integers (where the denominator cannot equal zero). The definition of an irrational number is a number that CANNOT be expressed as a ratio of any two integers. Therefore a rational number CANNOT equal an irrational number (I honestly don't know how to make this point any clearer). By the way, here are some references: <URL>... <URL>... First of all I want to clarify that by saying repeating numbers I specifically mean the repeating representation of the number, such as 0.333 repeating. The number 1/3 is a fraction, it is composed by only two integers, while the number 0.333 repeating is composed of infinitely many digits. These two numbers can be proven to be equal by using simply dividing 1 by 3. The math property of dividing 1 by 3 is a well defined property in mathemetics because it involves two finite numbers. Once you convert 0.333 repeating to 1/3 then you can use all the math properties (associativity, commutativity, addition, etc.) that you want on this representation of the number. However, you cannot add, multiply, substract, or divided, on the repeating representation of the number directly using math properties because repeating numbers go on infinitely. The reason for not been able to use addition, substraction, multiplication or division on infinite numbers is because this properties break down when dealing with infinity. For example: infinity + 1 = infinity substracting infinity from both sides gives: 1 = 0 This was a very simple example, but it shows that basic operations break down when dealing with infinity because these operations are undefined for infinity. Therefore, to FORMALLY do an operation on a repeating number, this number will have to be re-written as a fraction and then these basic operations can be performed on the fraction representation of the number. The main problem with 1.999 repating is that it cannot be written as a ratio of any two numbers. I will briefly write the proof of this again (PLEASE CHECK THIS ARGUMENT CAREFULLY TO UNDERSTAND WHY 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal 2): If we divide 6 by 3 (for example) we can only obtain 2. However, it is impossible to obtain 1.999 repeating by dividing 6 by 3 since the number of times that the divisor (the number 3 for this case) is contained in the dividend (the number 6 for this case) is 2. THIS SHOWS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN THE NUMBER 1 AS THE FIRST TERM OF THE NUMBER 1.999 repeating. Since there are no two integer numbers whose ratio gives 1.999 repeating then we must conclude this is an irrational number, and as stated above, that 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal the number 2. You wrote: "You say that 19.999 repeating minus 1.999 repeating is equal to 18.000 repeating plus one. Maybe I should instruct you on what infinity is, so that you don't botch it in our debate. Infinity goes on forever, so you would never have the chance to put that one in there" I am really glad you wrote this statement down. What makes you think that I would never have the chance to put that one in there, but you would have the chance of substracting all the terms in the repeating representations of 19.999 repeating and 1.999 repeating? You wrote: "your definitions are simply not as convincing as actually doing the math, kennard. The math works, and your definitions seem somewhat indirect and possibly misinterpreted" Have you seen how many post are out there indicating that 1=2? These statements are posted by people who think that "the math works". However, people who really know about math realize that mathematical definitions must be used to PROVE things. That is why anyone who knows math well looks at the statement 1=2 and immediately realize that it involves the old trick of dividing by zero, which is (as you know) UNDEFINED. You wrote: "Why did you write this? The difference is .12 feet. If you meant to say 1.888 repeating, then the difference is .111 repeating feet" I apologize for not been clear on that line. The point that I was trying to prove there was that the fact that I cannot distinguish (visibly) the difference between a <PHONE> feet board and a 2 feet board those not make the two numbers equal. I really hope that now that I rewrote the definition of rational and irrational numbers, and how they clearly can't be equal to each other, that you proceed to prove that 1.999 repeating is a rational number. | 0 | kennard |
You wrote the following two statements: "why can't a rational number not be equal to an irrational number?" and "your definition did not include that a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number. You say that it can't but us debaters on here are probably not just going to take your word for it. Saying that I could check it in a math book is not enough to show your case. Give us some exact wording that can be cross checked so that we can indeed see that a rational number can never be equal to an irrational number."
The definition of a rational number is a number that CAN be expressed as a ratio of two integers (where the denominator cannot equal zero). The definition of an irrational number is a number that CANNOT be expressed as a ratio of any two integers. Therefore a rational number CANNOT equal an irrational number (I honestly don't know how to make this point any clearer). By the way, here are some references:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
First of all I want to clarify that by saying repeating numbers I specifically mean the repeating representation of the number, such as 0.333 repeating. The number 1/3 is a fraction, it is composed by only two integers, while the number 0.333 repeating is composed of infinitely many digits. These two numbers can be proven to be equal by using simply dividing 1 by 3. The math property of dividing 1 by 3 is a well defined property in mathemetics because it involves two finite numbers. Once you convert 0.333 repeating to 1/3 then you can use all the math properties (associativity, commutativity, addition, etc.) that you want on this representation of the number.
However, you cannot add, multiply, substract, or divided, on the repeating representation of the number directly using math properties because repeating numbers go on infinitely. The reason for not been able to use addition, substraction, multiplication or division on infinite numbers is because this properties break down when dealing with infinity. For example:
infinity + 1 = infinity
substracting infinity from both sides gives:
1 = 0
This was a very simple example, but it shows that basic operations break down when dealing with infinity because these operations are undefined for infinity.
Therefore, to FORMALLY do an operation on a repeating number, this number will have to be re-written as a fraction and then these basic operations can be performed on the fraction representation of the number. The main problem with 1.999 repating is that it cannot be written as a ratio of any two numbers. I will briefly write the proof of this again (PLEASE CHECK THIS ARGUMENT CAREFULLY TO UNDERSTAND WHY 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal 2):
If we divide 6 by 3 (for example) we can only obtain 2. However, it is impossible to obtain 1.999 repeating by dividing 6 by 3 since the number of times that the divisor (the number 3 for this case) is contained in the dividend (the number 6 for this case) is 2. THIS SHOWS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN THE NUMBER 1 AS THE FIRST TERM OF THE NUMBER 1.999 repeating. Since there are no two integer numbers whose ratio gives 1.999 repeating then we must conclude this is an irrational number, and as stated above, that 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal the number 2.
You wrote: "You say that 19.999 repeating minus 1.999 repeating is equal to 18.000 repeating plus one. Maybe I should instruct you on what infinity is, so that you don't botch it in our debate. Infinity goes on forever, so you would never have the chance to put that one in there"
I am really glad you wrote this statement down. What makes you think that I would never have the chance to put that one in there, but you would have the chance of substracting all the terms in the repeating representations of 19.999 repeating and 1.999 repeating?
You wrote: "your definitions are simply not as convincing as actually doing the math, kennard. The math works, and your definitions seem somewhat indirect and possibly misinterpreted"
Have you seen how many post are out there indicating that 1=2? These statements are posted by people who think that "the math works". However, people who really know about math realize that mathematical definitions must be used to PROVE things. That is why anyone who knows math well looks at the statement 1=2 and immediately realize that it involves the old trick of dividing by zero, which is (as you know) UNDEFINED.
You wrote: "Why did you write this? The difference is .12 feet. If you meant to say 1.888 repeating, then the difference is .111 repeating feet"
I apologize for not been clear on that line. The point that I was trying to prove there was that the fact that I cannot distinguish (visibly) the difference between a 1.9998888777 feet board and a 2 feet board those not make the two numbers equal.
I really hope that now that I rewrote the definition of rational and irrational numbers, and how they clearly can't be equal to each other, that you proceed to prove that 1.999 repeating is a rational number. | Science | 2 | 1.999-repeating-2/1/ | 162 |
I think the following example is good evidence that addition, substraction, multiplication, and divison break down when used on the repeating form of a number. For example, people who claim that you can add repeating numbers do the following: 000.333 repeating + 0.666 repeating ----------------------- 000.999 repeating (Sorry for writing the three extra zeros in front of the decimal point, but I wanted to align the three repeating numbers) So as you can see, they add the numbers as if they were finite numbers, and then write repeating at the end. But let's see what happens when we add the following two repeating forms of the following numbers: 000.999 repeating + 0.999 repeating ------------------------- 001.998 repeating (Again, sorry for writing the extra zeros in front of the decimal point, but I wanted to align the three repeating numbers) As we can clearly see, addition breaks down in this case (unless now you want to debate that 1.998 repeating equals 2). This is because, as I stated earlier, this forms of writing a number go on infinitely, and we can never finish completing the full addition of all the terms. Similar logic can prove that substraction, multiplication, and division cannot be performed on repeating forms of a number. By the way, if you click on the second wiki reference that I gave, the very first line says: "In mathematics, an irrational number is any real number that is not a rational number". You say that you are a non-mathematician, and that is fine, but it clearly says that "an irrational number is any real number that is not a rational number", therefore an irrational number can never equal a rational number. If you read the definition of the two numbers, it indicates that rational numbers can be written as the ratio of two integers, but irrational numbers cannot. In other words, rational numbers can be obtained by dividing two integers, but irrational numbers cannot. By the way, I don't want to make this personal, so I apologize if there has been some tension between our comments. Actually I am glad we are having this debate because it has made me think a lot, haha. | 0 | kennard |
I think the following example is good evidence that addition, substraction, multiplication, and divison break down when used on the repeating form of a number. For example, people who claim that you can add repeating numbers do the following:
000.333 repeating
+ 0.666 repeating
-----------------------
000.999 repeating
(Sorry for writing the three extra zeros in front of the decimal point, but I wanted to align the three repeating numbers)
So as you can see, they add the numbers as if they were finite numbers, and then write repeating at the end. But let's see what happens when we add the following two repeating forms of the following numbers:
000.999 repeating
+ 0.999 repeating
-------------------------
001.998 repeating
(Again, sorry for writing the extra zeros in front of the decimal point, but I wanted to align the three repeating numbers)
As we can clearly see, addition breaks down in this case (unless now you want to debate that 1.998 repeating equals 2). This is because, as I stated earlier, this forms of writing a number go on infinitely, and we can never finish completing the full addition of all the terms. Similar logic can prove that substraction, multiplication, and division cannot be performed on repeating forms of a number.
By the way, if you click on the second wiki reference that I gave, the very first line says: "In mathematics, an irrational number is any real number that is not a rational number".
You say that you are a non-mathematician, and that is fine, but it clearly says that "an irrational number is any real number that is not a rational number", therefore an irrational number can never equal a rational number. If you read the definition of the two numbers, it indicates that rational numbers can be written as the ratio of two integers, but irrational numbers cannot. In other words, rational numbers can be obtained by dividing two integers, but irrational numbers cannot.
By the way, I don't want to make this personal, so I apologize if there has been some tension between our comments. Actually I am glad we are having this debate because it has made me think a lot, haha. | Science | 3 | 1.999-repeating-2/1/ | 163 |
Well, for this last Round I'll just respond to some of the comments that have been posted down. Lazarus Long indicated that two integers whose ratio give 1.9999... repeating are 4/2. The proof that he gave is the following. "Since 1.999... = 2, then 4/2 = 1.99999.... Simple, no?" The only simple thing I see in this proof is realizing how flawed it is. I'll just change one number so that people can realize how foolish this "proof" is: Since 500 = 2, then 4/2 = 500 Simple, no? Then he claims the following: "how else would you explain: 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 2 which is the same as 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... = 2, which, if we simply do the addition, IS 0.999... + 0.999... = 2 which, of course, requires that 0.999... = 1 (actually the same as the question at hand here), so Q.E.D. " Well, the way I already explained why the "proof" written above is wrong is because addition, substraction, multiplication, and division cannot be performed directly on repeating representations of numbers. I showed this on the Round 4 of the debate. Therefore, 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... DOES NOT EQUAL 0.999... Another comment written down was made by beem0r with respect to the points I made in Round 4 are the following. Beem0r wrote: "I think we should realize that it isn't the 8 that's repeating, it's an 18 that's repeating. The 1 in the tens place will always change the previous 8 to a 9. You can do addition and subtraction with repeating numbers, you just have to know what's repeating. .999... + .999... is 1.999..." The fact that he has to "realize" what is repeating proves my point that addition and all the other operations cannot be performed directly with repeating representations of numbers. I do understand what he is saying, so I'll rephrase it here. What he is saying is that the 8 at the end (end?) will constantly be changing to a 9 because of the 1 that is carried from the sum of the nines on the column that is directly to its right. So the number that we will have is 0.999...(infinite nines)...9998 with the eight constantly and forever changing to a 9. This is why addition and the other operations cannot be performed on infinite representations of numbers, because this operations are only DEFINED on finite representations of numbers. Therefore the only way to make algebraic operations on inifinite representations of numbers is to write them in a finite form. This could be done either by writing them as a fraction or representing them by a variable (or symbol, as is the case for Pi). Since 1.999 cannot be obtaind by dividing any two integers (which means it cannot be written as a fraction) then the only way to do algebra on it is by representing it with a variable. The proof that 1.999 repeating cannot be written as a ratio of any two integers is written in Round 1 and re-written in Round 3 of the CON side. Finally, I want to indicate that many people (including many mathematicians) don't really understand the concept of limits and infinity. For example, the limit of 1/x as x goes to inifinity equals zero. What this means is that as x goes to infinity the function will get closer and closer to zero, but it will NEVER equal zero. Many mathematicians make the wrong claim that, "at infinity the function will equal to zero". This statement is wrong because it assumes that there is a point where the function will actually equal zero. But then I ask, after it reaches zero then what? Does it remain being zero, does it become negative? The point that I am trying to make here is that infinity is not a point that can be reached, infinity just means that it will keep on going forever. Therefore 1/x will get closer and closer to zero forever, but it will never equal zero. The best we can do when dealing with infinity is to use limits to indicate what value some function will get closer to, but that is as good as it gets. This means that 1.999 repeating is by definition the number that is closest to 2 from the numbers that are smaller than 2. | 0 | kennard |
Well, for this last Round I'll just respond to some of the comments that have been posted down.
Lazarus Long indicated that two integers whose ratio give 1.9999... repeating are 4/2. The proof that he gave is the following.
"Since
1.999... = 2, then
4/2 = 1.99999....
Simple, no?"
The only simple thing I see in this proof is realizing how flawed it is. I'll just change one number so that people can realize how foolish this "proof" is:
Since
500 = 2, then
4/2 = 500
Simple, no?
Then he claims the following:
"how else would you explain:
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 2
which is the same as
0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... = 2,
which, if we simply do the addition, IS
0.999... + 0.999... = 2
which, of course, requires that 0.999... = 1 (actually the same as the question at hand here), so Q.E.D. "
Well, the way I already explained why the "proof" written above is wrong is because addition, substraction, multiplication, and division cannot be performed directly on repeating representations of numbers. I showed this on the Round 4 of the debate. Therefore,
0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... DOES NOT EQUAL 0.999...
Another comment written down was made by beem0r with respect to the points I made in Round 4 are the following.
Beem0r wrote: "I think we should realize that it isn't the 8 that's repeating, it's an 18 that's repeating. The 1 in the tens place will always change the previous 8 to a 9. You can do addition and subtraction with repeating numbers, you just have to know what's repeating. .999... + .999... is 1.999..."
The fact that he has to "realize" what is repeating proves my point that addition and all the other operations cannot be performed directly with repeating representations of numbers. I do understand what he is saying, so I'll rephrase it here. What he is saying is that the 8 at the end (end?) will constantly be changing to a 9 because of the 1 that is carried from the sum of the nines on the column that is directly to its right. So the number that we will have is 0.999...(infinite nines)...9998 with the eight constantly and forever changing to a 9.
This is why addition and the other operations cannot be performed on infinite representations of numbers, because this operations are only DEFINED on finite representations of numbers. Therefore the only way to make algebraic operations on inifinite representations of numbers is to write them in a finite form. This could be done either by writing them as a fraction or representing them by a variable (or symbol, as is the case for Pi). Since 1.999 cannot be obtaind by dividing any two integers (which means it cannot be written as a fraction) then the only way to do algebra on it is by representing it with a variable.
The proof that 1.999 repeating cannot be written as a ratio of any two integers is written in Round 1 and re-written in Round 3 of the CON side.
Finally, I want to indicate that many people (including many mathematicians) don't really understand the concept of limits and infinity. For example, the limit of 1/x as x goes to inifinity equals zero. What this means is that as x goes to infinity the function will get closer and closer to zero, but it will NEVER equal zero. Many mathematicians make the wrong claim that, "at infinity the function will equal to zero". This statement is wrong because it assumes that there is a point where the function will actually equal zero. But then I ask, after it reaches zero then what? Does it remain being zero, does it become negative? The point that I am trying to make here is that infinity is not a point that can be reached, infinity just means that it will keep on going forever. Therefore 1/x will get closer and closer to zero forever, but it will never equal zero. The best we can do when dealing with infinity is to use limits to indicate what value some function will get closer to, but that is as good as it gets. This means that 1.999 repeating is by definition the number that is closest to 2 from the numbers that are smaller than 2. | Science | 4 | 1.999-repeating-2/1/ | 164 |
Alright. This seemes to be a fun debate. | 0 | baseballkid |
Alright. This seemes to be a fun debate. | Society | 0 | 10.1-million-people-in-prison-is-much-worse-than-genocide./1/ | 176 |
I am sorry. I tried for a couple days to write a case but I am just not knowledgeable on the subject and all i could have done was make myself look stupid. | 0 | baseballkid |
I am sorry. I tried for a couple days to write a case but I am just not knowledgeable on the subject and all i could have done was make myself look stupid. | Society | 1 | 10.1-million-people-in-prison-is-much-worse-than-genocide./1/ | 177 |
If you ever do this again try to not emphasise the Holocaust so much. all cases I had written just attacked that. | 0 | baseballkid |
If you ever do this again try to not emphasise the Holocaust so much. all cases I had written just attacked that. | Society | 2 | 10.1-million-people-in-prison-is-much-worse-than-genocide./1/ | 178 |
emphasise the other parts of your case. That is what meant. | 0 | baseballkid |
emphasise the other parts of your case. That is what meant. | Society | 3 | 10.1-million-people-in-prison-is-much-worse-than-genocide./1/ | 179 |
I was hoping to create a debate without choosing a position myself, thus allowing my opponent to choose whichever side they'd like and leaving me to argue the opposite position. But since I apparently can't do that I'm hoping instead to debate one side, and upon conclusion rehash the debate (presumably with a different opponent) with my position flipped around. For this first debate I've chosen to take the position I agree with least - that age of consent should be 18 rather than 15. I consider both positions to be pretty equally sub-optimal, but I've chosen them to amplify the advantages and disadvantages of each. Round 1 - Acceptance, definitions Rounds 2, 3 - Introduce and counter arguments Round 4 - No new arguments, conclusions PRO will argue that the age of consent should be 15 CON will argue that the age of consent should be 18 For this debate I have chosen CON. No semantics. This debate encompasses whether - as a matter of law, morals, practicality, or any other reasonable and relevant reason - it makes more sense for the age of sexual consent to be 15, or 18 in the USA. If you wish to clarify or add any definitions please do so in round 1. PLEASE - Only accept if you plan to actually follow through with all 4 rounds, I've not actually been able to engage in a real debate yet because of flaky opponents. | 1 | maxx233 |
I was hoping to create a debate without choosing a position myself, thus allowing my opponent to choose whichever side they'd like and leaving me to argue the opposite position. But since I apparently can't do that I'm hoping instead to debate one side, and upon conclusion rehash the debate (presumably with a different opponent) with my position flipped around. For this first debate I've chosen to take the position I agree with least - that age of consent should be 18 rather than 15. I consider both positions to be pretty equally sub-optimal, but I've chosen them to amplify the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Round 1 - Acceptance, definitions
Rounds 2, 3 - Introduce and counter arguments
Round 4 - No new arguments, conclusions
PRO will argue that the age of consent should be 15
CON will argue that the age of consent should be 18
For this debate I have chosen CON.
No semantics. This debate encompasses whether - as a matter of law, morals, practicality, or any other reasonable and relevant reason - it makes more sense for the age of sexual consent to be 15, or 18 in the USA. If you wish to clarify or add any definitions please do so in round 1.
PLEASE - Only accept if you plan to actually follow through with all 4 rounds, I've not actually been able to engage in a real debate yet because of flaky opponents. | Society | 0 | 15-is-a-better-age-of-sexual-consent-than-18/1/ | 232 |
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate! My opponent appears to start in round one (acceptance and definitions,) by asserting his position as a definition in the form of a proposed policy (Policy) and guidelines for that policy (Guidelines). Therefore, as a matter of definition, I of course must reject his Proposal and the Guidelines therein. I do however accept the definitions he contributes for "Age of sexual consent" and "sexual". It's unclear whether my opponent meant to submit his Proposal and Guidelines as the full position he wishes to defend. In an attempt to not disregard his efforts completely, and because many of the clauses present in the Proposal are relevant to the debate, I will likely touch on many of the issues he has presented. However, since posted in Round 1 - reserved exclusively for acceptance and definitions - and thus rejected as a definition, it is up to my opponent to re-introduce any topics he feels are relevant that I may not formally introduce this round. Point 1: Age of Majority The age of majority is "the chronological moment when minors cease to legally be considered children and assume control over their persons, actions, and decisions, thereby terminating the legal control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over and for them." [1] While this is not the same as age of consent, and perhaps often gets confused with age of consent, it is significant due to the ramifications (such as pregnancy!) that consensual sex can bring upon a minor that the parents of that minor would ultimately be responsible for. This is a primary reason why age of consent should in fact match up with the age of majority - which is almost universally 18, including in the USA. A parent should not be held responsible to provide financially for their daughter's pregnancy or child if they don't agree with it and had no part in it. But if the daughter is legally able to consent to sex as a matter of personal choice at an age younger than 18 then the parent has no right to restrict that particular choice, nor do they have a right over the girl's body to force an abortion, not even a right to force an adoption of the child. With the divergence between age of consent and age of majority the parents become responsible for a whole additional human being without any legal say in the matter. Point 2: Prevent unwanted pregnancies Pregnancy is the #1 reason girls drop out of school.[2] It's imperative that students finish high school, and an unwanted pregnancy contributes toward them quitting early and not receiving a diploma. With a lower age of consent it stands to reason that the frequency of teenage sexual encounters would increase, and as a direct result so would the frequency of teenage pregnancy. Point #3: Maturity Research suggests that the human brain does not fully develop until age 21-22 in females, and age 30 in males. [3] Furthermore, "Studies in both humans and other animals have suggested that the dopamine system peaks in activity during adolescenese. If this is true, the abundance of dopamine might lead to different considerations of short-term and long-term rewards and consequences" in teenagers. [4] Because of this it is possible that teenagers may not properly consider consequences when engaging in sexual activity, lending credence to a higher age of consent in order to protect them from sexual exploitation from adults. In conclusion, I would like to briefly address a few points from my opponents Proposal should he choose to formally introduce these points in the debate during his next two rounds: * It is illogical to create a divergent legal system wherein sex between an adult and a 15 year old is legal, however an adult impregnating a 15 year old is not. Pregnancy is an unpredictable effect of sex and is likely under more control of the younger party (typically being female) due to birth control options available as well as personal knowledge of their menstrual/fertility cycle. * It is unreasonable to state that when the elder male party is over 18 that he would be financially responsible for the child or for the abortion at the family descrition, the that if the elder male was under 18 then abortion would be mandatory. In fact, stating at all that abortion would be mandatory is completely unreasonable, or at very least a topic for another debate all in itself. * If the law is concerning "safe sex" only then a detailed definition would need apply, and it is up to my opponent to prove that such safe sex is reliable and could be verified in a court of law. Also it should be noted that birth control is against some religions and therefore could not be considered a mandatory pre-requisite under the law. [1] - <URL>... [2] - <URL>... [3] - <URL>... [4] - <URL>... | 1 | maxx233 |
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate! My opponent appears to start in round one (acceptance and definitions,) by asserting his position as a definition in the form of a proposed policy (Policy) and guidelines for that policy (Guidelines). Therefore, as a matter of definition, I of course must reject his Proposal and the Guidelines therein. I do however accept the definitions he contributes for “Age of sexual consent” and “sexual”. It’s unclear whether my opponent meant to submit his Proposal and Guidelines as the full position he wishes to defend. In an attempt to not disregard his efforts completely, and because many of the clauses present in the Proposal are relevant to the debate, I will likely touch on many of the issues he has presented. However, since posted in Round 1 – reserved exclusively for acceptance and definitions – and thus rejected as a definition, it is up to my opponent to re-introduce any topics he feels are relevant that I may not formally introduce this round. Point 1: Age of Majority The age of majority is “the chronological moment when minors cease to legally be considered children and assume control over their persons, actions, and decisions, thereby terminating the legal control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over and for them.” [1] While this is not the same as age of consent, and perhaps often gets confused with age of consent, it is significant due to the ramifications (such as pregnancy!) that consensual sex can bring upon a minor that the parents of that minor would ultimately be responsible for. This is a primary reason why age of consent should in fact match up with the age of majority – which is almost universally 18, including in the USA. A parent should not be held responsible to provide financially for their daughter’s pregnancy or child if they don’t agree with it and had no part in it. But if the daughter is legally able to consent to sex as a matter of personal choice at an age younger than 18 then the parent has no right to restrict that particular choice, nor do they have a right over the girl’s body to force an abortion, not even a right to force an adoption of the child. With the divergence between age of consent and age of majority the parents become responsible for a whole additional human being without any legal say in the matter. Point 2: Prevent unwanted pregnancies Pregnancy is the #1 reason girls drop out of school.[2] It’s imperative that students finish high school, and an unwanted pregnancy contributes toward them quitting early and not receiving a diploma. With a lower age of consent it stands to reason that the frequency of teenage sexual encounters would increase, and as a direct result so would the frequency of teenage pregnancy. Point #3: Maturity Research suggests that the human brain does not fully develop until age 21-22 in females, and age 30 in males. [3] Furthermore, “Studies in both humans and other animals have suggested that the dopamine system peaks in activity during adolescenese. If this is true, the abundance of dopamine might lead to different considerations of short-term and long-term rewards and consequences” in teenagers. [4] Because of this it is possible that teenagers may not properly consider consequences when engaging in sexual activity, lending credence to a higher age of consent in order to protect them from sexual exploitation from adults. In conclusion, I would like to briefly address a few points from my opponents Proposal should he choose to formally introduce these points in the debate during his next two rounds: • It is illogical to create a divergent legal system wherein sex between an adult and a 15 year old is legal, however an adult impregnating a 15 year old is not. Pregnancy is an unpredictable effect of sex and is likely under more control of the younger party (typically being female) due to birth control options available as well as personal knowledge of their menstrual/fertility cycle. • It is unreasonable to state that when the elder male party is over 18 that he would be financially responsible for the child or for the abortion at the family descrition, the that if the elder male was under 18 then abortion would be mandatory. In fact, stating at all that abortion would be mandatory is completely unreasonable, or at very least a topic for another debate all in itself. • If the law is concerning “safe sex” only then a detailed definition would need apply, and it is up to my opponent to prove that such safe sex is reliable and could be verified in a court of law. Also it should be noted that birth control is against some religions and therefore could not be considered a mandatory pre-requisite under the law. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://www.aclu-wa.org... [3] - http://www.education.com... [4] - http://www.abqtrib.com... | Society | 1 | 15-is-a-better-age-of-sexual-consent-than-18/1/ | 233 |
Point #1: Age of Majority - Carried from R2 Despite the connection evident in my R2 argument connecting Age of Majority as being a practical consideration regarding the most appropriate Age of Consent, my opponent has labeled the Age of Majority as irrelevant without providing any suggestions or rationale whatsoever as to why he refutes the case I have clearly laid out in R2. Instead he says that age of majority is not a well-established fact, which makes little sense. The Age of Majority in the USA is, factually, 18 at a minimum[1]. While I agree that maturity is somewhat subjective that is not my point, and this debate is not about changing the Age of Majority - I simply am pointing out that the Age of Majority is one legitimate reason why 18 is a more suitable Age of Consent than 15. This is not based on physical maturity, nor social appropriateness of pregnancy in high school as my opponent seems to suggest. It simply is a practical matter that delineation of responsibility is best handed off in full at 18, and the lines should not be blurred before then by a 15 year old being able to make legal choices which may result in pregnancy. Therefore my R2 Point #1 regarding Age of Majority still stands. Point #2: Prevent Unwanted Pregnancies - Carried from R2 My opponent seems to think that pregnancy can be separated from sex and independently made illegal, and this is not so. If he believes it to be so then the burden of proof is on him and I will address his argument in my conclusions in R4. I clearly and pre-emptively stated in the first point of my R2 conclusion that it is illogical to separate sex and pregnancy into two divergent legal matters. Pregnancy is not a choice by either party - it happens largely based on chance. The factors that contribute toward pregnancy having a much higher chance of occurrence - ie, knowledge of fertility cycle, knowledge of and proper administration of birth control - are all within the control of the [typically younger] female partner. It does not make sense that an older male would NOT face any punishment for having sex with a 15 year old female, but he WOULD face financial and criminal punishment if - by sheer chance and a degree of control on the part of the younger female - she DID get pregnant! That's simply nonsense. If two parties willingly consent to sexual relations there is ALWAYS a chance of pregnancy, that chance cannot be separated from the original consent to engage in sex. The fact that a 15 year old has a fully sexually developed physical body does not mean they have control over pregnancy, and at 15 we both recognize that pregnancy is not beneficial. The only way to reduce the occurrence is to reduce the occurrence of the sex that leads to it, and a 3 year higher age of consent would logically restrict the occurrence of sex and thus the occurrence of pregnancy. My R2 Point #2 regarding the reduction of teenage pregnancies still stands. Point #3: Maturity - Accepted I did not see any arguments by my opponent refuting the age of full development for the human brain and the suggestion that due to a non-fully developed brain teenagers may not properly consider consequences of sexual activity. Therefore I will assume for now that this point has been accepted by my opponent. R3 Final Thoughts Finally, my opponent has misunderstood me regarding safe sex, somehow drawing an absurd conclusion that I've suggested unsafe sex should be practiced. I never stated that I think a 15 year old should have unsafe sex. This is in fact against my entire argument that a 15 year old should have NO sex. I simply said that it was up to my opponent to define "safe sex" as pertinent to his proposal, should he wish to officially introduce any element of that proposal as an argument, which he has failed to do. Since he has not introduced this argument there is nothing for me to refute here! I simply made a helpful suggestion that should he choose to introduce the argument he should save his time unless he can provide a legally compelling rationale that accounts for religious rejection of birth control, as it is an obvious problem to his idea of separating safe-sex from unsafe-sex let alone separating sex from pregnancy! [1] - <URL>... | 1 | maxx233 |
Point #1: Age of Majority – Carried from R2 Despite the connection evident in my R2 argument connecting Age of Majority as being a practical consideration regarding the most appropriate Age of Consent, my opponent has labeled the Age of Majority as irrelevant without providing any suggestions or rationale whatsoever as to why he refutes the case I have clearly laid out in R2. Instead he says that age of majority is not a well-established fact, which makes little sense. The Age of Majority in the USA is, factually, 18 at a minimum[1]. While I agree that maturity is somewhat subjective that is not my point, and this debate is not about changing the Age of Majority – I simply am pointing out that the Age of Majority is one legitimate reason why 18 is a more suitable Age of Consent than 15. This is not based on physical maturity, nor social appropriateness of pregnancy in high school as my opponent seems to suggest. It simply is a practical matter that delineation of responsibility is best handed off in full at 18, and the lines should not be blurred before then by a 15 year old being able to make legal choices which may result in pregnancy. Therefore my R2 Point #1 regarding Age of Majority still stands. Point #2: Prevent Unwanted Pregnancies – Carried from R2 My opponent seems to think that pregnancy can be separated from sex and independently made illegal, and this is not so. If he believes it to be so then the burden of proof is on him and I will address his argument in my conclusions in R4. I clearly and pre-emptively stated in the first point of my R2 conclusion that it is illogical to separate sex and pregnancy into two divergent legal matters. Pregnancy is not a choice by either party – it happens largely based on chance. The factors that contribute toward pregnancy having a much higher chance of occurrence – ie, knowledge of fertility cycle, knowledge of and proper administration of birth control - are all within the control of the [typically younger] female partner. It does not make sense that an older male would NOT face any punishment for having sex with a 15 year old female, but he WOULD face financial and criminal punishment if - by sheer chance and a degree of control on the part of the younger female - she DID get pregnant! That’s simply nonsense. If two parties willingly consent to sexual relations there is ALWAYS a chance of pregnancy, that chance cannot be separated from the original consent to engage in sex. The fact that a 15 year old has a fully sexually developed physical body does not mean they have control over pregnancy, and at 15 we both recognize that pregnancy is not beneficial. The only way to reduce the occurrence is to reduce the occurrence of the sex that leads to it, and a 3 year higher age of consent would logically restrict the occurrence of sex and thus the occurrence of pregnancy. My R2 Point #2 regarding the reduction of teenage pregnancies still stands. Point #3: Maturity – Accepted I did not see any arguments by my opponent refuting the age of full development for the human brain and the suggestion that due to a non-fully developed brain teenagers may not properly consider consequences of sexual activity. Therefore I will assume for now that this point has been accepted by my opponent. R3 Final Thoughts Finally, my opponent has misunderstood me regarding safe sex, somehow drawing an absurd conclusion that I’ve suggested unsafe sex should be practiced. I never stated that I think a 15 year old should have unsafe sex. This is in fact against my entire argument that a 15 year old should have NO sex. I simply said that it was up to my opponent to define “safe sex” as pertinent to his proposal, should he wish to officially introduce any element of that proposal as an argument, which he has failed to do. Since he has not introduced this argument there is nothing for me to refute here! I simply made a helpful suggestion that should he choose to introduce the argument he should save his time unless he can provide a legally compelling rationale that accounts for religious rejection of birth control, as it is an obvious problem to his idea of separating safe-sex from unsafe-sex let alone separating sex from pregnancy! [1] - http://contests.about.com... | Society | 2 | 15-is-a-better-age-of-sexual-consent-than-18/1/ | 234 |
I will address Pro"s final two questions in reverse order, as the first is dependent on the second: Because, at age 15, people would be devastated to be pregnant we should not allow them legal sexual relations for the following reasons: 1) Contraception and sex education are not fool proof. Continuous Abstinence is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy and protect against STDs[1] 2) Although he insists that 15 year olds should only have safe sex, Con has continuously ignored that this could never be legally mandated as such due to failure rates as well as religious complications that cannot simply be shrugged off 3) The use of most contraceptive methods, particularly the more effective ones, carries a plethora of negative side effects[1] that are likely to be distracting to the education a 15 year old should otherwise be receiving. Therefore, although someone is physically mature enough to have and perhaps enjoy sex, we should not immediately allow it because: 1) There is no guarantee, and can never be a guarantee that they will not get pregnant or contract an STD. This is evidenced by statistical failure rates of contraception as well as common sense in observing how many teen pregnancies currently occur. Frequency of sex increases the frequency of pregnancy " even with very good contraception in place and used correctly (a failure rate of 1%), if 100 girls have sex an average of 5 times throughout the year this suggests that 5 girls are likely to get pregnant. In a fairly typical high school of 1400, 700 of which would be girls " that means 35 girls would be likely to get pregnant each year . Therefore frequency of sex should be limited " and disallowing it is most effective for this. 2) Even if we lived in a magical alternative universe where unicorns pranced about and we could enjoy the physical stimulation of sex while either party was able to choose with absolute certainty not to become pregnant or contract an STD, this does not address the emotional effects of a sexual relationship. Due to the developing nature of a 15 year old, these effects are likely to be most intense in this age group and should not be overlooked as being psychologically harmful and distracting. Conclusion: Pro has failed to contest Point #1 (logical demarcation of responsibility coinciding with Age of Majority), and Point #3 (Lack of maturity and brain development at age 15.) Additionally, Pro has provided a weak and erroneously presumptive argument for Point #2 (preventing unwanted pregnancies.) He has failed to formally submit any of his ideas erroneously introduced in R1, and has also failed to provide answers or even argument for important questions that have been raised throughout the debate. His entire stance is based upon an imaginary situation that is very far removed from reality, and he has failed to ground his reasoning in a realistic context. His citation is weak and lacks substance. His arguments have been sloppy and lack structure. Vote Con ! I have provided ample reason why 15 as the Age of Consent rather than 18 - 1) would result in an increase of unwanted teen pregnancies as a function of increased teen sex, 2) blurs the lines of responsibility between what a legal minor can choose to do and what their parents are ultimately legally responsible for, and 3) is not taking the psychological or educational well-being of the younger party into consideration. I have provided key citation where necessary, and I have responded to every point my opponent has raised. I have kept my arguments structured and able to be easily referenced and read. I thank my opponent for this debate, as well as all those who may read and/or vote on it in the future. [1] <URL>... | 1 | maxx233 |
I will address Pro"s final two questions in reverse order, as the first is dependent on the second: Because, at age 15, people would be devastated to be pregnant we should not allow them legal sexual relations for the following reasons: 1) Contraception and sex education are not fool proof. Continuous Abstinence is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy and protect against STDs[1] 2) Although he insists that 15 year olds should only have safe sex, Con has continuously ignored that this could never be legally mandated as such due to failure rates as well as religious complications that cannot simply be shrugged off 3) The use of most contraceptive methods, particularly the more effective ones, carries a plethora of negative side effects[1] that are likely to be distracting to the education a 15 year old should otherwise be receiving. Therefore, although someone is physically mature enough to have and perhaps enjoy sex, we should not immediately allow it because: 1) There is no guarantee, and can never be a guarantee that they will not get pregnant or contract an STD. This is evidenced by statistical failure rates of contraception as well as common sense in observing how many teen pregnancies currently occur. Frequency of sex increases the frequency of pregnancy " even with very good contraception in place and used correctly (a failure rate of 1%), if 100 girls have sex an average of 5 times throughout the year this suggests that 5 girls are likely to get pregnant. In a fairly typical high school of 1400, 700 of which would be girls " that means 35 girls would be likely to get pregnant each year . Therefore frequency of sex should be limited " and disallowing it is most effective for this. 2) Even if we lived in a magical alternative universe where unicorns pranced about and we could enjoy the physical stimulation of sex while either party was able to choose with absolute certainty not to become pregnant or contract an STD, this does not address the emotional effects of a sexual relationship. Due to the developing nature of a 15 year old, these effects are likely to be most intense in this age group and should not be overlooked as being psychologically harmful and distracting. Conclusion: Pro has failed to contest Point #1 (logical demarcation of responsibility coinciding with Age of Majority), and Point #3 (Lack of maturity and brain development at age 15.) Additionally, Pro has provided a weak and erroneously presumptive argument for Point #2 (preventing unwanted pregnancies.) He has failed to formally submit any of his ideas erroneously introduced in R1, and has also failed to provide answers or even argument for important questions that have been raised throughout the debate. His entire stance is based upon an imaginary situation that is very far removed from reality, and he has failed to ground his reasoning in a realistic context. His citation is weak and lacks substance. His arguments have been sloppy and lack structure. Vote Con ! I have provided ample reason why 15 as the Age of Consent rather than 18 - 1) would result in an increase of unwanted teen pregnancies as a function of increased teen sex, 2) blurs the lines of responsibility between what a legal minor can choose to do and what their parents are ultimately legally responsible for, and 3) is not taking the psychological or educational well-being of the younger party into consideration. I have provided key citation where necessary, and I have responded to every point my opponent has raised. I have kept my arguments structured and able to be easily referenced and read. I thank my opponent for this debate, as well as all those who may read and/or vote on it in the future. [1] http://womenshealth.gov... | Society | 3 | 15-is-a-better-age-of-sexual-consent-than-18/1/ | 235 |
The number two is the same as one. 2 + 1 = 1 + 1 3 = 2 Of course, 3 = 2. That is very nice of a conundrum... | 0 | Jackie-Chan |
The number two is the same as one.
2 + 1 = 1 + 1
3 = 2
Of course, 3 = 2. That is very nice of a conundrum... | Science | 0 | 2-is-the-number-one./1/ | 273 |
You have not yet proved that 3 = 2 yet. Because the CON side can state that the PRO side has not proven its case and the CON can prevail, I use this option. | 0 | stephenyoo1995 |
You have not yet proved that 3 = 2 yet. Because the CON side can state that the PRO side has not proven its case and the CON can prevail, I use this option. | Science | 0 | 2-is-the-number-one./1/ | 274 |
The greatest indicator in today's society for where a person will end up in life is where they started in life. Nowhere is this more true for minorities where racism and bigotry has repeatedly and throughout the generations squandered any chance at the American dream. It is the duty of government to give everybody an equal shake at life. The concept of liberty is not simply a lack of chains but a chance at gains. The opportunity to do better than our fathers. The first and most well known step of affirmative action was to eliminate racial bias in the case of Brown v. Board of Education which resulted in a busing system such that individuals from white neighborhoods and those from minority neighborhoods could end up getting the same opportunities. Prior to the decision everybody simply went to the closest school and if that school happened to be a majority minority school, it just happened to get far less money and far less support. After breaking down the idea of "separate but equal" we were left with what what amounted to the same thing without the mandate. We needed to take an affirmative action to make sure that equal opportunities were had by all. We needed to take action to make the institutions of this fine country free of bias after it had been entrenched for so long it wasn't simply going to go away because we said it was wrong in a loud voice. Affirmative action is an attempt to make sure that everybody gets a fair shake in society. That you can't simply hire people who look like you and deny the opportunities to those who don't. We don't simply take your word that you hired the best and the brightest and they happened to be the whitest. We need to make sure that those of our fathers generation and their father's generations are allowed to rise to their full potential and not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Admittedly the idea of quotas within affirmative action was a mistake. However, allowing individuals to suggest that all minorities just happened to be less qualified than their white counterparts is just as far from acceptable. Companies can hire whomever they want, they can freely choose one person over another. They can't, however, choose that person because of the color of their skin or gender and deny chances to those who have historically been denied chances. Is it too much to ask that when policemen patrol an area that some fraction of that police force look like those they are policing? That we should take a stand against quiet racism and allow the hiring and firing of people to the point that the entire workforce happens to be all white men? We can't just say "no" and leave it at that. The government needs to continue to take affirmative action to make sure that we banish the specter of racism, not simply the direct bigotry of hate, but also the scars left on those populations which were quelled by injustice and whose children do not have the opportunities of others because their parents didn't have the opportunity of others. It's a vicious cycle and we need to take action, not just in word but deed, to make sure it dies with our father's generation. | 0 | Tatarize |
The greatest indicator in today's society for where a person will end up in life is where they started in life. Nowhere is this more true for minorities where racism and bigotry has repeatedly and throughout the generations squandered any chance at the American dream. It is the duty of government to give everybody an equal shake at life. The concept of liberty is not simply a lack of chains but a chance at gains. The opportunity to do better than our fathers.
The first and most well known step of affirmative action was to eliminate racial bias in the case of Brown v. Board of Education which resulted in a busing system such that individuals from white neighborhoods and those from minority neighborhoods could end up getting the same opportunities. Prior to the decision everybody simply went to the closest school and if that school happened to be a majority minority school, it just happened to get far less money and far less support. After breaking down the idea of "separate but equal" we were left with what what amounted to the same thing without the mandate. We needed to take an affirmative action to make sure that equal opportunities were had by all.
We needed to take action to make the institutions of this fine country free of bias after it had been entrenched for so long it wasn't simply going to go away because we said it was wrong in a loud voice.
Affirmative action is an attempt to make sure that everybody gets a fair shake in society. That you can't simply hire people who look like you and deny the opportunities to those who don't. We don't simply take your word that you hired the best and the brightest and they happened to be the whitest. We need to make sure that those of our fathers generation and their father's generations are allowed to rise to their full potential and not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Admittedly the idea of quotas within affirmative action was a mistake. However, allowing individuals to suggest that all minorities just happened to be less qualified than their white counterparts is just as far from acceptable. Companies can hire whomever they want, they can freely choose one person over another. They can't, however, choose that person because of the color of their skin or gender and deny chances to those who have historically been denied chances.
Is it too much to ask that when policemen patrol an area that some fraction of that police force look like those they are policing? That we should take a stand against quiet racism and allow the hiring and firing of people to the point that the entire workforce happens to be all white men?
We can't just say "no" and leave it at that. The government needs to continue to take affirmative action to make sure that we banish the specter of racism, not simply the direct bigotry of hate, but also the scars left on those populations which were quelled by injustice and whose children do not have the opportunities of others because their parents didn't have the opportunity of others.
It's a vicious cycle and we need to take action, not just in word but deed, to make sure it dies with our father's generation. | Politics | 0 | 2b.-Affirmative-Action/1/ | 283 |
0 is nothing, information, and matter is 1 you can never show me 0 bananas, but you can understand what im saying | 0 | vi_spex |
0 is nothing, information, and matter is 1
you can never show me 0 bananas, but you can understand what im saying | Science | 0 | 3-divided-by-0-is-3/1/ | 293 |
3 sodas shared by 0 people is 3 sodas, as nothing is being divided. dividing with 0 is the same as dividing with 1, because there is no division going on, I cant share 2 pizzas with myself, and I cant share them with an imaginary man if 3 sodas become imaginary by an imaginary man drinking it, then you are right, but matter can never be destroyed 0 people doesn't exist in reality | 0 | vi_spex |
3 sodas shared by 0 people is 3 sodas, as nothing is being divided.
dividing with 0 is the same as dividing with 1, because there is no division going on, I cant share 2 pizzas with myself, and I cant share them with an imaginary man
if 3 sodas become imaginary by an imaginary man drinking it, then you are right, but matter can never be destroyed
0 people doesn't exist in reality | Science | 1 | 3-divided-by-0-is-3/1/ | 294 |
I have 3 real sodas, I divide them between no one, so no times, shared by none, so I have not done anything, so its true to say 0 division happened but I have 3 sodas 3/1=3 3/0=3 why is 3 divided with 1, 3 when there is no division going on? the outcome of dividing with 0 is the same as dividing with 1 everything is 1, everything is something, and nothing is 0, matter and information, physical and mental | 0 | vi_spex |
I have 3 real sodas, I divide them between no one, so no times, shared by none, so I have not done anything, so its true to say 0 division happened but I have 3 sodas
3/1=3
3/0=3
why is 3 divided with 1, 3 when there is no division going on?
the outcome of dividing with 0 is the same as dividing with 1
everything is 1, everything is something, and nothing is 0, matter and information, physical and mental | Science | 2 | 3-divided-by-0-is-3/1/ | 295 |
do you agree? | 0 | vi_spex |
do you agree? | Science | 3 | 3-divided-by-0-is-3/1/ | 296 |
3*0=0 I agree there | 0 | vi_spex |
3*0=0
I agree there | Science | 4 | 3-divided-by-0-is-3/1/ | 297 |
There are 3 sides to a coin. Heads. Tails. The edge. We perform coin tosses to make decisions sometimes. Sheeple pick a side. Never the edge. This debate is about the tendency of the human species to choose a side, which the sheeple do, so they can be declared by the elites to be winners. The elites, those in the .000001% income bracket that attempt to control us, use this tendency to create more power for themselves. Don't listen to the propaganda and choose a side, eventually you will lose. Leaders do not live on the edge of the coin, they flip the coin. Leadership is a matter of greed,self righteousness, and the ability to flip the coin in the direction you want the sheeple to follow these days. The tools of elitist leaders are Science, War, and Justice. Good luck, let's have some fun! | 0 | Max.Wallace |
There are 3 sides to a coin.
Heads.
Tails.
The edge.
We perform coin tosses to make decisions sometimes.
Sheeple pick a side. Never the edge.
This debate is about the tendency of the human species to choose a side, which the sheeple do, so they can be declared by the elites to be winners. The elites, those in the .000001% income bracket that attempt to control us, use this tendency to create more power for themselves.
Don't listen to the propaganda and choose a side, eventually you will lose.
Leaders do not live on the edge of the coin, they flip the coin.
Leadership is a matter of greed,self righteousness, and the ability to flip the coin in the direction you want the sheeple to follow these days.
The tools of elitist leaders are Science, War, and Justice.
Good luck, let's have some fun! | Philosophy | 0 | 3-sides-of-the-coin/1/ | 308 |
Considering the fact, that you joined, most likely as an avatar with prior experience, to Master Debate this issue show's us all, "we the people", your clearly dedicated commitment to the destruction of free will, and the war your saviors propose, on those that live with the "pursuit of happiness" as their only goal. Freedom does not apply, when the Ivory tower rookie speaks? That be you sir. As certainly you are a professional at this game, as no rook, would sign up yesterday and make an argument as polished as yours. Clear win for whoever is not an Ivory tower, debt ridden capitulate. | 0 | Max.Wallace |
Considering the fact, that you joined, most likely as an avatar with prior experience, to Master Debate this issue show's us all, "we the people", your clearly dedicated commitment to the destruction of free will, and the war your saviors propose, on those that live with the "pursuit of happiness" as their only goal.
Freedom does not apply, when the Ivory tower rookie speaks? That be you sir. As certainly you are a professional at this game, as no rook, would sign up yesterday and make an argument as polished as yours.
Clear win for whoever is not an Ivory tower, debt ridden capitulate. | Philosophy | 1 | 3-sides-of-the-coin/1/ | 309 |
Here it goes, take it or leave it, it matters not one bit to me. I will address all of your assertions in order based on my observations of life, of which I have 41 years experience, while according to your profile you have 18, which would mean I have a 23 point lead already, in a measure of experience, if your profile is not a blatant lie. The conundrum of this debate, with you as an opponent, is that it is equally likely, in my mind, that you are who you say, or just full of monkey dung. I quote you"Leaders, contrary too what many think, ultimately represent a percent of their population. " What percent? Certainly it is a minority percent these days, and the American Constitution, I believe was written to represent the safety of the majority. That is not what we are doing here in America today. We live in the land of minorities ruling, a land of division, not unity. We are all "special" because we are different, right? You say "That my dear friend, would only be the case in an utopian society of which, as you can by the lack of global proof, is still very much a figment of your imagination." You lost me on that one with poor grammar, borderline gibberish. And your words "Now, of course; leaders do not live on the edge of a coin- simply because they cannot. Leaders are diplomats, and thus leaders are, by virtue of international expectations and pressures, diplomatic." I disagree, unless you can tell me what diplomats, other then the ones our globalist koolaid drinkers have elected, and by that I mean outside of the US and our allies, which at this point in time I think there are almost no true allies to the US, only well dressed bloodsuckers. You say "It would be unwise for any person with responsibilities to make light of them, especially when these responsibilities could possibly amount to the fate of millions." That is a borderline threat, if you are who you say which would be a parliament or congressional insider that flips the coin. Well is that truly you sir? An 18 year old cohort of congress? That may be what is wrong with our system if our parliamentarians are taking advice from, in essence, children. Children running the world, that's a great idea! Kids love to kill bugs, at least most of them, but not you right? An 18 year old calling an elder unwise, mularkey! You speak of Martin Luther King, as if I do not understand the courage he had, to fight injustice. The fact is that I respect that man a great deal, and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin, or the color of mine. We have moved past that point now, and I believe that MLK would wish nothing more then that the people he freed from tyranny, would join in the fight to protect American values, such as marriage and families, forgiveness, and compassion, for taxpaying American citizens. He fought for equality, HERE! And you say sir, "P.S. I apologize for the inflammatory remarks made earlier (at the beginning), they are what I have just made them to be. For the purpose of this debate, they are merely there to 'spice' up this discourse; I hope you can return the sentiments. It would make for a much livelier debate !" I like it, and I may apologize at the end, as long as you can take words written, so can I. You say "What say I? Well, for one; I'm flattered that you think of me as an 'avatar'. Rest assured however Wallace, that I am indeed a 'rookie' with no prior experience of debating online." I would invite you to Google "avatar defined", and in my mind your are #2 most likely, and flattery was not the purpose of my observation. I am inclined to believe that you have never before deigned to stoop to the level of a truly public debate, not on the telly, unless you are truly an 18 year old advocate of the NWO. Here is something you said that is almost truth to me, "There are no separations up at the top, but there are too many down below, yes? However, those down below firmly fixate those separations before them- not allowing them to overcome them and climb rungs to reach heights." Those on top further the separations here, in the land of the free, home of the brave. Please retort to that specifically. This is a philosophical debate, not one with regurgitated factoids as evidence for truth, truth is in your eye, but stuck in your behind by the leaders. I necessarily dismiss the rest of your argument. I am glad you are not a capitulate, and pray you are not debt ridden, because your spirit will side with the debt, no matter who your owner is. Thank you, well put, it is all for fun in my stupid rat brain mind. Thanks P.S. Please do not convince your parliamentary cohorts to send the black ops to my house. If that is my fate, so be it. | 0 | Max.Wallace |
Here it goes, take it or leave it, it matters not one bit to me.
I will address all of your assertions in order based on my observations of life, of which I have 41 years experience, while according to your profile you have 18, which would mean I have a 23 point lead already, in a measure of experience, if your profile is not a blatant lie.
The conundrum of this debate, with you as an opponent, is that it is equally likely, in my mind, that you are who you say, or just full of monkey dung.
I quote you"Leaders, contrary too what many think, ultimately represent a percent of their population. " What percent? Certainly it is a minority percent these days, and the American Constitution, I believe was written to represent the safety of the majority. That is not what we are doing here in America today. We live in the land of minorities ruling, a land of division, not unity. We are all "special" because we are different, right?
You say "That my dear friend, would only be the case in an utopian society of which, as you can by the lack of global proof, is still very much a figment of your imagination." You lost me on that one with poor grammar, borderline gibberish.
And your words "Now, of course; leaders do not live on the edge of a coin- simply because they cannot. Leaders are diplomats, and thus leaders are, by virtue of international expectations and pressures, diplomatic."
I disagree, unless you can tell me what diplomats, other then the ones our globalist koolaid drinkers have elected, and by that I mean outside of the US and our allies, which at this point in time I think there are almost no true allies to the US, only well dressed bloodsuckers.
You say "It would be unwise for any person with responsibilities to make light of them, especially when these responsibilities could possibly amount to the fate of millions."
That is a borderline threat, if you are who you say which would be a parliament or congressional insider that flips the coin. Well is that truly you sir? An 18 year old cohort of congress? That may be what is wrong with our system if our parliamentarians are taking advice from, in essence, children. Children running the world, that's a great idea! Kids love to kill bugs, at least most of them, but not you right? An 18 year old calling an elder unwise, mularkey!
You speak of Martin Luther King, as if I do not understand the courage he had, to fight injustice. The fact is that I respect that man a great deal, and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin, or the color of mine. We have moved past that point now, and I believe that MLK would wish nothing more then that the people he freed from tyranny, would join in the fight to protect American values, such as marriage and families, forgiveness, and compassion, for taxpaying American citizens. He fought for equality, HERE!
And you say sir,
"P.S. I apologize for the inflammatory remarks made earlier (at the beginning), they are what I have just made them to be. For the purpose of this debate, they are merely there to 'spice' up this discourse; I hope you can return the sentiments. It would make for a much livelier debate !"
I like it, and I may apologize at the end, as long as you can take words written, so can I.
You say "What say I? Well, for one; I'm flattered that you think of me as an 'avatar'. Rest assured however Wallace, that I am indeed a 'rookie' with no prior experience of debating online."
I would invite you to Google "avatar defined", and in my mind your are #2 most likely, and flattery was not the purpose of my observation. I am inclined to believe that you have never before deigned to stoop to the level of a truly public debate, not on the telly, unless you are truly an 18 year old advocate of the NWO.
Here is something you said that is almost truth to me,
"There are no separations up at the top, but there are too many down below, yes? However, those down below firmly fixate those separations before them- not allowing them to overcome them and climb rungs to reach heights."
Those on top further the separations here, in the land of the free, home of the brave. Please retort to that specifically.
This is a philosophical debate, not one with regurgitated factoids as evidence for truth, truth is in your eye, but stuck in your behind by the leaders. I necessarily dismiss the rest of your argument. I am glad you are not a capitulate, and pray you are not debt ridden, because your spirit will side with the debt, no matter who your owner is.
Thank you, well put, it is all for fun in my stupid rat brain mind. Thanks
P.S. Please do not convince your parliamentary cohorts to send the black ops to my house. If that is my fate, so be it. | Philosophy | 2 | 3-sides-of-the-coin/1/ | 310 |
forfeiture is an act of submission., clear win for the courageous. | 0 | Max.Wallace |
forfeiture is an act of submission., clear win for the courageous. | Philosophy | 4 | 3-sides-of-the-coin/1/ | 311 |
Due to the black art of psychology, you believe you know who and what I am, but I believe I know you no less as well. | 0 | Max.Wallace |
Due to the black art of psychology, you believe you know who and what I am, but I believe I know you no less as well. | Philosophy | 6 | 3-sides-of-the-coin/1/ | 312 |
Max Wallace, do you take pleasure in stating the obvious? Leaders, contrary too what many think, ultimately represent a percent of their population. This is where your first error lies. I take it you assume by your words "[they] want the sheeple to follow" that leaders represent 100% of their national electorate, and thus expect everyone to naturally follow them based on their status? That my dear friend, would only be the case in an utopian society of which, as you can by the lack of global proof, is still very much a figment of your imagination. Now, of course; leaders do not live on the edge of a coin- simply because they cannot. Leaders are diplomats, and thus leaders are, by virtue of international expectations and pressures, diplomatic. It would be unwise for any person with responsibilities to make light of them, especially when these responsibilities could possibly amount to the fate of millions. You forget, or perhaps are not informed, about the many instances where leadership has been a tool used to carve out the basal beginnings of social justice. Take for instance the civil rights movement which took place during the 1960's. If Martin Luther King Jr. had not, and I repeat, had not, usurped the discriminatory state of affairs that plagued American society during this era without sufficient leadership skills to aid him... the situation in America for those of darker skin, foreign nationality, disability and orientation would have been very dire indeed. Perhaps at the time, Mr King had no idea of the precedent he placed down on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that day, but now, fifty years on many are glad Mr King had a dream that day. That, is leadership my friend. It is not based on the notions of "greed, self-righteousness or the ability to [manipulate]", but rather it is based on the ability to tell the truth, and for basic human decency to acknowledge it. The leadership you have been exposed to, or interpreted in whatever fashion or manner; is indeed a warped perception of what leadership is and should be. P.S. I apologize for the inflammatory remarks made earlier (at the beginning), they are what I have just made them to be. For the purpose of this debate, they are merely there to 'spice' up this discourse; I hope you can return the sentiments. It would make for a much livelier debate ! | 0 | PauseAndThink |
Max Wallace, do you take pleasure in stating the obvious?
Leaders, contrary too what many think, ultimately represent a percent of their population. This is where your first error lies. I take it you assume by your words "[they] want the sheeple to follow" that leaders represent 100% of their national electorate, and thus expect everyone to naturally follow them based on their status? That my dear friend, would only be the case in an utopian society of which, as you can by the lack of global proof, is still very much a figment of your imagination.
Now, of course; leaders do not live on the edge of a coin- simply because they cannot. Leaders are diplomats, and thus leaders are, by virtue of international expectations and pressures, diplomatic.
It would be unwise for any person with responsibilities to make light of them, especially when these responsibilities could possibly amount to the fate of millions.
You forget, or perhaps are not informed, about the many instances where leadership has been a tool used to carve out the basal beginnings of social justice. Take for instance the civil rights movement which took place during the 1960's. If Martin Luther King Jr. had not, and I repeat, had not, usurped the discriminatory state of affairs that plagued American society during this era without sufficient leadership skills to aid him... the situation in America for those of darker skin, foreign nationality, disability and orientation would have been very dire indeed.
Perhaps at the time, Mr King had no idea of the precedent he placed down on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that day, but now, fifty years on many are glad Mr King had a dream that day.
That, is leadership my friend. It is not based on the notions of "greed, self-righteousness or the ability to [manipulate]", but rather it is based on the ability to tell the truth, and for basic human decency to acknowledge it.
The leadership you have been exposed to, or interpreted in whatever fashion or manner; is indeed a warped perception of what leadership is and should be.
P.S. I apologize for the inflammatory remarks made earlier (at the beginning), they are what I have just made them to be. For the purpose of this debate, they are merely there to 'spice' up this discourse; I hope you can return the sentiments. It would make for a much livelier debate ! | Philosophy | 0 | 3-sides-of-the-coin/1/ | 313 |
Mr Max Wallace... *sigh* What say I? Well, for one; I'm flattered that you think of me as an 'avatar'. Rest assured however Wallace, that I am indeed a 'rookie' with no prior experience of debating online. I hope to see you give me a chance to discourse this topic- regardless of how polished I sound ( a mere matter of carefully reading what I have read, and thinking before I write), without you attacking my personal attributes to compensate for the lack of evidence you bring to the table to debate and stand by your reasoning. Therefore, I strike everything you have said as null and void. We are entering a debate for goodness sakes man, this is a contest of ideas. A plateau in which we contend notions and either regard or disregard them. Now, to actually move on to the topics you so wondrously thought your years on this earth gave reason to justify. There is no added physiological difference to being in a position of leadership. As one who has spoken to multiple Members of Parliament (MP's), there is nothing different in the way they may dress or carry themselves, that would allow me to distinguish them from the average commuter using public transport. You, however, Wallace, seem to receive most of your information from biased third party reels, such as the media for your source of enlightenment concerning several topics. It is evident. It is clear. You highlight your ignorance and your malleability to be controlled by media outlets when you begin to make conclusions as to who "[are] the people", and in effect separate yourself from who you consider the leaders to be. You see Wallace, that is a secret those at the top will never tell you, but which I will gladly tell all. Any-one can be at the top. Media, marketing, events and parliamentary debates- it's part of the facade that tells people like you, Wallace; that you have to be of a certain caliber and background to belong in a place such as Parliament House. There are no separations up at the top, but there are too many down below, yes? However, those down below firmly fixate those separations before them- not allowing them to overcome them and climb rungs to reach heights. Ivory tower rookie? How absurd! To think you know nothing of my past, nor my struggles, to dare stand and throw both stone and stick to judge me! I do accept the praise. I shall take it as such. But yes, Mr Wallace, some people are inhibited in the world with real trees, and real people, with their real problems- so much so; that topics such as this, "we the people" and all those who have faced such inhibiting forms of discrimination come here to speak their mind! Imagine if all the to be scholars- those with aspirations in terms of philosophy and politics and other debatable topics, came here to speak their mind! The flush demographic would change the entire face of 'Debate.org'- overnight! You cannot judge a person based on the tone, nor standard of English they wish to contend! People who blame others for pursuing dreams of education and enlightenment sicken me, to no end do they sicken me. I ask you sir, to stand up with real evidence to defend your point; so that we can get a true perspective of another persons view on leadership. Stick to your topic, or do you forfeit in a lowly attempt to cover your lack of evidence? Debt-ridden capitulate? It is far from a capitulate my friend. | 0 | PauseAndThink |
Mr Max Wallace... *sigh*
What say I? Well, for one; I'm flattered that you think of me as an 'avatar'. Rest assured however Wallace, that I am indeed a 'rookie' with no prior experience of debating online. I hope to see you give me a chance to discourse this topic- regardless of how polished I sound ( a mere matter of carefully reading what I have read, and thinking before I write), without you attacking my personal attributes to compensate for the lack of evidence you bring to the table to debate and stand by your reasoning.
Therefore, I strike everything you have said as null and void. We are entering a debate for goodness sakes man, this is a contest of ideas. A plateau in which we contend notions and either regard or disregard them.
Now, to actually move on to the topics you so wondrously thought your years on this earth gave reason to justify. There is no added physiological difference to being in a position of leadership. As one who has spoken to multiple Members of Parliament (MP's), there is nothing different in the way they may dress or carry themselves, that would allow me to distinguish them from the average commuter using public transport. You, however, Wallace, seem to receive most of your information from biased third party reels, such as the media for your source of enlightenment concerning several topics. It is evident. It is clear. You highlight your ignorance and your malleability to be controlled by media outlets when you begin to make conclusions as to who "[are] the people", and in effect separate yourself from who you consider the leaders to be.
You see Wallace, that is a secret those at the top will never tell you, but which I will gladly tell all. Any-one can be at the top. Media, marketing, events and parliamentary debates- it's part of the facade that tells people like you, Wallace; that you have to be of a certain caliber and background to belong in a place such as Parliament House. There are no separations up at the top, but there are too many down below, yes? However, those down below firmly fixate those separations before them- not allowing them to overcome them and climb rungs to reach heights.
Ivory tower rookie? How absurd! To think you know nothing of my past, nor my struggles, to dare stand and throw both stone and stick to judge me! I do accept the praise. I shall take it as such. But yes, Mr Wallace, some people are inhibited in the world with real trees, and real people, with their real problems- so much so; that topics such as this, "we the people" and all those who have faced such inhibiting forms of discrimination come here to speak their mind! Imagine if all the to be scholars- those with aspirations in terms of philosophy and politics and other debatable topics, came here to speak their mind!
The flush demographic would change the entire face of 'Debate.org'- overnight!
You cannot judge a person based on the tone, nor standard of English they wish to contend! People who blame others for pursuing dreams of education and enlightenment sicken me, to no end do they sicken me.
I ask you sir, to stand up with real evidence to defend your point; so that we can get a true perspective of another persons view on leadership. Stick to your topic, or do you forfeit in a lowly attempt to cover your lack of evidence?
Debt-ridden capitulate? It is far from a capitulate my friend. | Philosophy | 1 | 3-sides-of-the-coin/1/ | 314 |
Yes, the first argument is twisting the resolution. That's called a prison wall. It is neither a fence in the traditional sense or a border. The term border fence is specific enough to warrant the exclusion of such definitions. People illegally enter the country anyway. A massive super-expensive fence isn't going to do squat. As much as we love the Great Wall of China everybody agrees that it's a pretty massive failure, there's just too much border to guard. In the age of explosives and technology it gets worse. People will just blow the fence up. Seriously, you could walk up to it with some dynamite or any of a variety of explosives and blow it up. You wouldn't even need to care about going through before during or after. Blow a few holes in it and you'll have easy passage for a few months before our government gets around to doing squat about it. Ineffective certainly but it's probably pretty cheap, right? How does 49 billion dollars sound? <URL>... Not that nice eh? --- I agree that we need to control immigration but I don't agree that an ineffective waste of massive amounts of cash is the right way to go about this. I could fix the illegal immigration for a few million dollars. Rat out any business that hires illegal immigrant labor and you get $5,000, a temporary work visa, and accelerated approval for you and your family to immigrate to the United States. We'd pay out a few million dollars and nobody would ever hire illegal immigrants again. Problem solved. No economic encouragement to break our laws and they won't break our laws. We don't need to spend 49 billion dollars (that's more than 150 dollars from every man, woman, and child in the United States (including the 11 million here illegally)) There's a right way to go about securing the borders and a wrong way. Where there's a will there's a way. We need to get rid of the reasons people come here rather than dealing with the problem superficially and suggesting that a big fence will stop people when it can't and doesn't work. We don't really want to solve the problem. The solution is downright trivial and the reason for the political support for the Border Fence is not because people think it will work, but because they know it will fail while allowing them to appear strong on the issue. Punish the businesses exploiting workers and denying opportunities of American jobs for American workers. Just because there's a problem doesn't mean we need to instantly defer to a really bad, ineffective, and expensive "non-solution"... however this is government we're talking about and that's how government tends to operate. Market forces and human nature could fix this problem in short order, if anybody had the political will to enforce. | 0 | Tatarize |
Yes, the first argument is twisting the resolution. That's called a prison wall. It is neither a fence in the traditional sense or a border. The term border fence is specific enough to warrant the exclusion of such definitions.
People illegally enter the country anyway. A massive super-expensive fence isn't going to do squat. As much as we love the Great Wall of China everybody agrees that it's a pretty massive failure, there's just too much border to guard. In the age of explosives and technology it gets worse. People will just blow the fence up. Seriously, you could walk up to it with some dynamite or any of a variety of explosives and blow it up. You wouldn't even need to care about going through before during or after. Blow a few holes in it and you'll have easy passage for a few months before our government gets around to doing squat about it.
Ineffective certainly but it's probably pretty cheap, right? How does 49 billion dollars sound?
http://www.sfgate.com...
Not that nice eh?
---
I agree that we need to control immigration but I don't agree that an ineffective waste of massive amounts of cash is the right way to go about this. I could fix the illegal immigration for a few million dollars. Rat out any business that hires illegal immigrant labor and you get $5,000, a temporary work visa, and accelerated approval for you and your family to immigrate to the United States. We'd pay out a few million dollars and nobody would ever hire illegal immigrants again. Problem solved. No economic encouragement to break our laws and they won't break our laws. We don't need to spend 49 billion dollars (that's more than 150 dollars from every man, woman, and child in the United States (including the 11 million here illegally))
There's a right way to go about securing the borders and a wrong way. Where there's a will there's a way. We need to get rid of the reasons people come here rather than dealing with the problem superficially and suggesting that a big fence will stop people when it can't and doesn't work. We don't really want to solve the problem. The solution is downright trivial and the reason for the political support for the Border Fence is not because people think it will work, but because they know it will fail while allowing them to appear strong on the issue.
Punish the businesses exploiting workers and denying opportunities of American jobs for American workers. Just because there's a problem doesn't mean we need to instantly defer to a really bad, ineffective, and expensive "non-solution"... however this is government we're talking about and that's how government tends to operate. Market forces and human nature could fix this problem in short order, if anybody had the political will to enforce. | Society | 0 | 3b.-Border-Fence/1/ | 329 |
Some of you may be wondering, what exactly do I mean by a border fence? Some of you may think you already know. I will define border fence: Border Fence: The fence around the border of any prison. I am in favor of continuing to use the idea of a border fence. First, it keeps criminals in. This goal also requires other things, such as guards, else the prisoners would escape, but having a border fence certainly limits escapees. Second, it works to separate the prison from the outside world. It works not only as a real separator; it is also a symbol of the separation between prison life and life outside prison. The fence costs very little, and it makes the job of guards much easier. It may even make their jobs so much easier that fewer guards are needed to keep watch, saving money in the long run. I see the above as pretty solid, so I will now give a brief outline of what many of you may have originally expected this debate to be about - a fence between the border of the US and Mexico. This is only for those who will not accept my 'twisting' of the resolution. It is a fact that without such a fence, people illegally enter the country. This could be limited by the use of guards, but much like the prison scenario, a fence would reduce the number of guards needed. Funds could come from both taxpayer money [since it is law enforcement], as well as from groups who would donate money and time, such as this one: <URL>... A fence keeps citizens in their own country, unless they have clearance to cross the border legally. This is imperative. To not uphold this is to say that we do not care - to say that we are willing to let illegal aliens take advantage of us. Like all laws, immigration laws must be upheld. There is a proper process immigrants must go through to come to America. We can obviously make whatever necessary changes to this process, but we still have to have a process for tax purposes at the very least. To uphold this process and the fair system we have set up, it is advisable to have a border between the US and Mexico. | 0 | beem0r |
Some of you may be wondering, what exactly do I mean by a border fence? Some of you may think you already know. I will define border fence:
Border Fence: The fence around the border of any prison.
I am in favor of continuing to use the idea of a border fence.
First, it keeps criminals in. This goal also requires other things, such as guards, else the prisoners would escape, but having a border fence certainly limits escapees.
Second, it works to separate the prison from the outside world. It works not only as a real separator; it is also a symbol of the separation between prison life and life outside prison.
The fence costs very little, and it makes the job of guards much easier. It may even make their jobs so much easier that fewer guards are needed to keep watch, saving money in the long run.
I see the above as pretty solid, so I will now give a brief outline of what many of you may have originally expected this debate to be about - a fence between the border of the US and Mexico. This is only for those who will not accept my 'twisting' of the resolution.
It is a fact that without such a fence, people illegally enter the country. This could be limited by the use of guards, but much like the prison scenario, a fence would reduce the number of guards needed. Funds could come from both taxpayer money [since it is law enforcement], as well as from groups who would donate money and time, such as this one:
http://www.borderfenceproject.com...
A fence keeps citizens in their own country, unless they have clearance to cross the border legally. This is imperative. To not uphold this is to say that we do not care - to say that we are willing to let illegal aliens take advantage of us. Like all laws, immigration laws must be upheld.
There is a proper process immigrants must go through to come to America. We can obviously make whatever necessary changes to this process, but we still have to have a process for tax purposes at the very least. To uphold this process and the fair system we have set up, it is advisable to have a border between the US and Mexico. | Society | 0 | 3b.-Border-Fence/1/ | 330 |
hai i wil argue imnem i s bes rap artiist. | 0 | ADHDavid |
hai i wil argue imnem i s bes rap artiist. | Education | 0 | 3minem-iz-th-bet-raper/1/ | 331 |
As you can see, con has not provided a stable opening with evidence to back it up, claiming that he is a "god". I see no proof of his omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence, so this is easily refuted. Now I will follow up on why I Eminem is the best rapper. 1: Sales and Records Eminem is the best selling rap artist of all time, and has since 2014 surpassed Tupac in amount of albums sold. He has had 83 top 100 chart songs, as well as many platinum records. He is the most successful rapper, and probably the best known of all time (Although that is speculation, not based on evidence, I will point that out right now. ) 2: Lyricism Eminem is best known for his witty rap, and his un-politically correct demeanor in rap. He is able to change between different characters, and basically "Ract" Out the situation, or explain it clearly using his own words and rhythm. His song "Rap God" Has the most words in a hit song ever, with around 1600, and each one of them is heard very clearly. 3: He has a disability! It's true, Slim Shady has a disability that affects his brain, and how it functions. In high school, he was beaten badly by a bully, and his head was damaged in the process, causing him to have at least one seizure. If this brain injury affects him, and he is still out-preforming most other rappers today, that is something to marvel 4: Closing... All in all, Eminem is not the best person in the world, or the most horrible. He's a normal human being, and that's what makes him so great. He doesn't rap about the club, prostitution, hoes, bitches, guns and money. (Maybe guns..) but other things....that are just as controversial. So, as you can see, all these things make Eminem great! Vote Pro! <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... | 0 | ADHDavid |
As you can see, con has not provided a stable opening with evidence to back it up, claiming that he is a "god". I see no proof of his omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence, so this is easily refuted. Now I will follow up on why I Eminem is the best rapper.
1: Sales and Records
Eminem is the best selling rap artist of all time, and has since 2014 surpassed Tupac in amount of albums sold. He has had 83 top 100 chart songs, as well as many platinum records. He is the most successful rapper, and probably the best known of all time (Although that is speculation, not based on evidence, I will point that out right now. )
2: Lyricism
Eminem is best known for his witty rap, and his un-politically correct demeanor in rap. He is able to change between different characters, and basically "Ract" Out the situation, or explain it clearly using his own words and rhythm. His song "Rap God" Has the most words in a hit song ever, with around 1600, and each one of them is heard very clearly.
3: He has a disability!
It's true, Slim Shady has a disability that affects his brain, and how it functions. In high school, he was beaten badly by a bully, and his head was damaged in the process, causing him to have at least one seizure. If this brain injury affects him, and he is still out-preforming most other rappers today, that is something to marvel
4: Closing...
All in all, Eminem is not the best person in the world, or the most horrible. He's a normal human being, and that's what makes him so great. He doesn't rap about the club, prostitution, hoes, bitches, guns and money. (Maybe guns..) but other things....that are just as controversial. So, as you can see, all these things make Eminem great! Vote Pro!
http://thesmokinggun.com...
http://www.nydailynews.com...
http://www.houstonpress.com...
http://www.yorapper.com... | Education | 1 | 3minem-iz-th-bet-raper/1/ | 332 |
3 pac is legendary. <URL>... | 0 | DATXDUDE |
3 pac is legendary.
https://www.youtube.com... | Arts | 0 | 3pac/1/ | 333 |
0 hoots s0n, str8 up. Donn giv no h00ts bout' noWacK a$$ shii]t s0m. Brieh. | 0 | DATXDUDE |
0 hoots s0n, str8 up. Donn giv no h00ts bout' noWacK a$$ shii]t s0m. Brieh. | Arts | 1 | 3pac/1/ | 334 |
Legendary s0n. <URL>... H00t a$$ BlTCH | 0 | DATXDUDE |
Legendary s0n.
https://www.youtube.com...
H00t a$$ BlTCH | Arts | 2 | 3pac/1/ | 335 |
gOOGlE? Wh0 neds G000GlE? 3pAc doN't Ned dat shiiet brieh. 0 h00ts #ZHG | 0 | DATXDUDE |
gOOGlE? Wh0 neds G000GlE? 3pAc doN't Ned dat shiiet brieh. 0 h00ts #ZHG | Arts | 3 | 3pac/1/ | 336 |
Definition: legend G2;ledA8;(@)nd/ noun 1. a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated. "the legend of King Arthur" synonyms:myth, saga, epic, folk tale, folk story, traditional story, tale, story, fairy tale, narrative, fable, romance; More historical the story of a saint's life. "the mosaics illustrate the Legends of the Saints" 2. an extremely famous or notorious person, especially in a particular field. "the man was a living legend" Neither of these definitons apply to 3pac. Source: <URL>... | 0 | Morganic |
Definition: legend
G2;lɛdA8;(ə)nd/
noun
1.
a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated.
"the legend of King Arthur"
synonyms:myth, saga, epic, folk tale, folk story, traditional story, tale, story, fairy tale, narrative, fable, romance; More
historical
the story of a saint's life.
"the mosaics illustrate the Legends of the Saints"
2.
an extremely famous or notorious person, especially in a particular field.
"the man was a living legend"
Neither of these definitons apply to 3pac.
Source:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... | Arts | 1 | 3pac/1/ | 337 |
My opponent makes another excellent point, however after running "3pac" through a Google trends search I discover yet more evidence that "3pac" cannot be described as a "legend" <URL>... In fact when looking for searches related to "3pac" Google says "Not enough search volume to show results." I thank my opponent for his insightful comments and await his response with baited breath. | 0 | Morganic |
My opponent makes another excellent point, however after running "3pac" through a Google trends search I discover yet more evidence that "3pac" cannot be described as a "legend" https://www.google.com...
In fact when looking for searches related to "3pac" Google says
"Not enough search volume to show results."
I thank my opponent for his insightful comments and await his response with baited breath. | Arts | 2 | 3pac/1/ | 338 |
We have acceptable amounts of campaign finance regulations we simply need to enforce those regulations in order to properly ensure a fair and productive election. While many people worry about lobbyists and companies buying up politicians one need look no further than Barack Obama. He ran an entire campaign primarily off small contributions from everyday people. He raised more money than any campaign in history without taking a dime from lobbyists. We need to keep our politicians accountable rather than have them write more loopholes into clever sounding laws. This campaign season we discovered a rather impressive loophole that McCain wrote into the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance reform bill that exempts travel on your wife's private company jet. Who's wife would even have a private company jet? Oh, McCain's wife does. -- We don't need to change the law we need to enforce the laws we have and make politicians accountable to the people. That's the point of democracy. Ross Perot did do well because he had money. If you want to spend your money to run a political campaign you can still do this. Mitt Romney this election cycle was largely self-funded. But, ultimately it's the people who decide regardless of where the money comes from. Perot failed. Romney failed. And lobbyists, such as those running McCain's campaign, failed. The system works. What we really need are run off elections and the ability of third party candidates to have a voice without sapping votes off from the second choice candidates. We need a fair and productive system for all the voices in politics. As it turns out, the laws we have work and people don't forgive those in the pockets of corporations. The people aren't stupid and they vote for those who will best serve them. The politicians aren't stupid and can wiggle out of whatever laws we have them write for themselves. We must, as a people, hold them accountable. | 0 | Tatarize |
We have acceptable amounts of campaign finance regulations we simply need to enforce those regulations in order to properly ensure a fair and productive election. While many people worry about lobbyists and companies buying up politicians one need look no further than Barack Obama. He ran an entire campaign primarily off small contributions from everyday people. He raised more money than any campaign in history without taking a dime from lobbyists. We need to keep our politicians accountable rather than have them write more loopholes into clever sounding laws.
This campaign season we discovered a rather impressive loophole that McCain wrote into the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance reform bill that exempts travel on your wife's private company jet. Who's wife would even have a private company jet? Oh, McCain's wife does. -- We don't need to change the law we need to enforce the laws we have and make politicians accountable to the people. That's the point of democracy.
Ross Perot did do well because he had money. If you want to spend your money to run a political campaign you can still do this. Mitt Romney this election cycle was largely self-funded. But, ultimately it's the people who decide regardless of where the money comes from. Perot failed. Romney failed. And lobbyists, such as those running McCain's campaign, failed.
The system works. What we really need are run off elections and the ability of third party candidates to have a voice without sapping votes off from the second choice candidates. We need a fair and productive system for all the voices in politics. As it turns out, the laws we have work and people don't forgive those in the pockets of corporations.
The people aren't stupid and they vote for those who will best serve them. The politicians aren't stupid and can wiggle out of whatever laws we have them write for themselves. We must, as a people, hold them accountable. | Politics | 0 | 4a.-Campaign-Finance-Reform/1/ | 341 |
A campaign lives and dies by money and it's getting worse and worse every election cycle. When money is more important than votes, we find that anybody we need to elect is going to be far more indebted to the money than the people. The current system is a legal nightmare, a joke, and an albatross around the necks of everybody in politics. I don't know what the solutions to the problems are, but I do know that the problems are not going to be solved by doing nothing. We need to reform the system because the current system is categorically broken. 1) Politicians are indebted to the money. 2) The superwealthy rather than the most qualified can most easily seek office. 3) To comply with the current system you need an army of lawyers. 4) The 3rd party candidates cannot afford an army of lawyers and thus are forbade. 5) The rules are seemingly random and makeshift as to what is an isn't acceptable. 6) Campaign rules at present violate freedom of speech dictating what is and isn't acceptable. 7) Regardless if somebody opts into campaign finance they are buried by the 527s and are hamstrung by the rules and unable to fight back. 8) The rules limit the amount of funds one can raise and so if one candidate opts in and another opts out, the candidate as part of the system is doomed to be outspent. We need to find a way to remove money from the equation without limiting free speech or making it a requirement to hire an army of lawyers, shutting out third-party voices and insulating incumbents from the will of the people. The money in politics must be removed, not half-socialized, if you want and agree to jump through certain hoops, only to be buried by a quasi-independent group's 24/7 attack ads with bottomless funds and vile lies. We need something better than the best politician money can buy. There are a good number of proposals to draw from, from clean money to state funded elections as to how we remove money from having a greater input to our democracy than the people. -- We need Campaign Finance Reform. | 0 | Tatarize |
A campaign lives and dies by money and it's getting worse and worse every election cycle. When money is more important than votes, we find that anybody we need to elect is going to be far more indebted to the money than the people. The current system is a legal nightmare, a joke, and an albatross around the necks of everybody in politics.
I don't know what the solutions to the problems are, but I do know that the problems are not going to be solved by doing nothing. We need to reform the system because the current system is categorically broken.
1) Politicians are indebted to the money.
2) The superwealthy rather than the most qualified can most easily seek office.
3) To comply with the current system you need an army of lawyers.
4) The 3rd party candidates cannot afford an army of lawyers and thus are forbade.
5) The rules are seemingly random and makeshift as to what is an isn't acceptable.
6) Campaign rules at present violate freedom of speech dictating what is and isn't acceptable.
7) Regardless if somebody opts into campaign finance they are buried by the 527s and are hamstrung by the rules and unable to fight back.
8) The rules limit the amount of funds one can raise and so if one candidate opts in and another opts out, the candidate as part of the system is doomed to be outspent.
We need to find a way to remove money from the equation without limiting free speech or making it a requirement to hire an army of lawyers, shutting out third-party voices and insulating incumbents from the will of the people. The money in politics must be removed, not half-socialized, if you want and agree to jump through certain hoops, only to be buried by a quasi-independent group's 24/7 attack ads with bottomless funds and vile lies.
We need something better than the best politician money can buy. There are a good number of proposals to draw from, from clean money to state funded elections as to how we remove money from having a greater input to our democracy than the people. -- We need Campaign Finance Reform. | Politics | 0 | 4b.-Campaign-Finance-Reform/1/ | 342 |
Thank you for this debate. My opponent has failed to provide an opening argument, so I will be forced to reply to another one of his arguments on this site on the same subject, but first I will say my views on the subject. There is absolutely no evidence that the government had anything to do with the 9/11 disasters, besides perhaps incompetence. I will reply, paragraph by paragraph to this thread. <URL>... You claim that we were 'told' that we were attacked for our 'freedom and prosperity', while I do not believe that is true that is more of a political war mongering point rather than an official explanation. I propose, with UBL's (Ussama Bin Laden) own rhetoric that we were attacked for our foreign policy of intervention and support of Israel. Your step back into history has been used time and time again by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. The argument here is fallacious, what Hitler did has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on right now. Events being fabricated in the past is NOT, in any way shape or form evidence of events being fabricated NOW. The collapse of Building 7 was not sudden, it had been on fire for hours before its collapse, and had suffered serious structural damage- including key support pillers falling, and a main gas line breaking, feeding the fire. Reporters making mistakes is to be expected in a serious incident like this one, if you're suggesting that the US government notified all media of this- including British media, yet somehow none of them have talked yet is foolish. As anybody who has taken a class in logic must know, just because something has never happened before does not mean it is impossible. Before the first plane flew, no planes have flown. Does that mean flight is impossible? While it may show slight similar ties to a controlled demolition, every building crashing would likely show similarities to a controlled demolition. When you look at the bigger picture, those similarities dissapear. Debris fell everywhere, on the road, into other buildings, and into other buildings far outside of the WTC area. A controlled demolition would NEVER allow any such thing to happen. The Bush administration did not need 9/11 to enter into the middle east. regardless of the intentions, staging a terror attack would be too radical, even for bush, when he could have just attacked at will- by, for example, making up.... oh.... a nuclear / biological threat? I am looking forward to your other arguments on the subject. | 0 | DucoNihilum |
Thank you for this debate.
My opponent has failed to provide an opening argument, so I will be forced to reply to another one of his arguments on this site on the same subject, but first I will say my views on the subject.
There is absolutely no evidence that the government had anything to do with the 9/11 disasters, besides perhaps incompetence.
I will reply, paragraph by paragraph to this thread.
http://www.debate.org...
You claim that we were 'told' that we were attacked for our 'freedom and prosperity', while I do not believe that is true that is more of a political war mongering point rather than an official explanation. I propose, with UBL's (Ussama Bin Laden) own rhetoric that we were attacked for our foreign policy of intervention and support of Israel.
Your step back into history has been used time and time again by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. The argument here is fallacious, what Hitler did has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on right now. Events being fabricated in the past is NOT, in any way shape or form evidence of events being fabricated NOW.
The collapse of Building 7 was not sudden, it had been on fire for hours before its collapse, and had suffered serious structural damage- including key support pillers falling, and a main gas line breaking, feeding the fire. Reporters making mistakes is to be expected in a serious incident like this one, if you're suggesting that the US government notified all media of this- including British media, yet somehow none of them have talked yet is foolish.
As anybody who has taken a class in logic must know, just because something has never happened before does not mean it is impossible. Before the first plane flew, no planes have flown. Does that mean flight is impossible?
While it may show slight similar ties to a controlled demolition, every building crashing would likely show similarities to a controlled demolition. When you look at the bigger picture, those similarities dissapear. Debris fell everywhere, on the road, into other buildings, and into other buildings far outside of the WTC area. A controlled demolition would NEVER allow any such thing to happen.
The Bush administration did not need 9/11 to enter into the middle east. regardless of the intentions, staging a terror attack would be too radical, even for bush, when he could have just attacked at will- by, for example, making up.... oh.... a nuclear / biological threat?
I am looking forward to your other arguments on the subject. | Politics | 0 | 9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/ | 399 |
As I tried to make clear for you before, while some politicians (Including GwB) may have used buzz words like 'they hate us for our freedom' the official reason was absolutely not 'they hate us for our freedom'- and to prove that I read though my copy of The 9/11 Commission Report- entitled the "Final report of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the united states", showing that is very clearly the official government version. In this report, on chapter 5, it speaks of the motives of the mastermind of the 9/11 plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In that, it states his motives as "not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." UBL has some similar rhetoric, but much of it can be confused into what GwB was saying. Here are a few quotes from UBL. He directed his followers to "Kill Americans anywhere" Tenth Public Hearing, Testimony of Louis Freeh. 9/11 Commission (April 13, 2004). Some of his claimed intentions for the 9/11 attack (In his video released taking full responsibility for the attack) were to "restore freedom to our nation," to "punish the aggressor in kind," and to inflict economic damage on America. He declared that a continuing objective of his holy war was to "bleed America to the point of bankruptcy." While I disagree with GwB on his misunderstanding of the 9/11 attacks, this is not evidence of any orchestration. While your showing that false flag operations have occurred in the past, that has absolutely no relevance to this incident at hand. Just because they can does not mean they will- furthermore the situations had little in common. You're bring up totally irrelevant material. Trying to use any of this as proof or even evidence for 9/11 being orchestrated by the US government is simply fallacious, using, among others, the appeal to probability. Investigation teams did investigate the steel- however, not every piece of steel needed to be investigates. What you call small bits of debris weren't 'small bits'- they were actually rather large hunks of the trade center falling onto it. I question your engineering knowledge, saying that ALL columns would have to be cut 'within a split second', mixing a few major columns destruction and a fire fueled by thousands of gallons of fuel could easily cause the structural weakness required to collapse a building. As when the 9/11 commission was written building 7 wasn't investigated as thoroughly. At this time, the most probable theory is the one I've been pushing in this debate. Buildings like WTC 7 tend to fall on their own foundation, use logic. Gravity pushes them downward, not sideways. If a building were to fall elsewhere it would be because of some other force, such as wind, or in the case of the leaning tower of pisa, poor foundation. While biological weapons may not bring the same support for 9/11 you claim a terrorist attack would, they would still generate enough support for him to actually go to war. He, in fact, required no support to go to war- he is the president, and, while unconstitutionally so, he can declare war whenever he wants. If he were to really gather support for Iraq you would think he would have the attackers coming from Iraq, when they actually traced to saudi members of the Al-Quadea group. If so, he also failed massively- as, like Vietnam, the Iraq war is incredibly unpopular- except among the most conservative of audiences. You have yet to show any serious evidence that the government orchestrated this attack, you have yet to show any papers- nor any testimony that it was in fact controlled by the government. Someone benefiting slightly from the 9/11 attacks is NOT evidence that they were orchestrated by the government, they are evidence that some politicians want to exploit a national tragedy for their own uses. | 0 | DucoNihilum |
As I tried to make clear for you before, while some politicians (Including GwB) may have used buzz words like 'they hate us for our freedom' the official reason was absolutely not 'they hate us for our freedom'- and to prove that I read though my copy of The 9/11 Commission Report- entitled the "Final report of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the united states", showing that is very clearly the official government version. In this report, on chapter 5, it speaks of the motives of the mastermind of the 9/11 plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In that, it states his motives as "not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." UBL has some similar rhetoric, but much of it can be confused into what GwB was saying. Here are a few quotes from UBL. He directed his followers to "Kill Americans anywhere" Tenth Public Hearing, Testimony of Louis Freeh. 9/11 Commission (April 13, 2004). Some of his claimed intentions for the 9/11 attack (In his video released taking full responsibility for the attack) were to "restore freedom to our nation," to "punish the aggressor in kind," and to inflict economic damage on America. He declared that a continuing objective of his holy war was to "bleed America to the point of bankruptcy."
While I disagree with GwB on his misunderstanding of the 9/11 attacks, this is not evidence of any orchestration.
While your showing that false flag operations have occurred in the past, that has absolutely no relevance to this incident at hand. Just because they can does not mean they will- furthermore the situations had little in common. You're bring up totally irrelevant material. Trying to use any of this as proof or even evidence for 9/11 being orchestrated by the US government is simply fallacious, using, among others, the appeal to probability.
Investigation teams did investigate the steel- however, not every piece of steel needed to be investigates. What you call small bits of debris weren't 'small bits'- they were actually rather large hunks of the trade center falling onto it. I question your engineering knowledge, saying that ALL columns would have to be cut 'within a split second', mixing a few major columns destruction and a fire fueled by thousands of gallons of fuel could easily cause the structural weakness required to collapse a building. As when the 9/11 commission was written building 7 wasn't investigated as thoroughly. At this time, the most probable theory is the one I've been pushing in this debate. Buildings like WTC 7 tend to fall on their own foundation, use logic. Gravity pushes them downward, not sideways. If a building were to fall elsewhere it would be because of some other force, such as wind, or in the case of the leaning tower of pisa, poor foundation.
While biological weapons may not bring the same support for 9/11 you claim a terrorist attack would, they would still generate enough support for him to actually go to war. He, in fact, required no support to go to war- he is the president, and, while unconstitutionally so, he can declare war whenever he wants. If he were to really gather support for Iraq you would think he would have the attackers coming from Iraq, when they actually traced to saudi members of the Al-Quadea group. If so, he also failed massively- as, like Vietnam, the Iraq war is incredibly unpopular- except among the most conservative of audiences.
You have yet to show any serious evidence that the government orchestrated this attack, you have yet to show any papers- nor any testimony that it was in fact controlled by the government. Someone benefiting slightly from the 9/11 attacks is NOT evidence that they were orchestrated by the government, they are evidence that some politicians want to exploit a national tragedy for their own uses. | Politics | 1 | 9-11-Who-really-attacked-us-and-why/1/ | 400 |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
- Downloads last month
- 32