BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

I don't understand how proof 1 is faulty at all. Use common sense you can subtract an irrational number from an irrational number to get a rational number. Ex. 9 +0.999... = 9.999... - 0.999... = 9.999... Your website makes little sense. It depends on what those irrational numbers are. Are they all the same number such as 0.999..., do they have no patterns like pi, or do they, etc. It really depends. Here is a proof 9.999... - 0.999... = 9 9 + (0.999... - 0.999...). No you're wrong actually I didn't say 10x - x = 9x = 9 I said 10x - x = 9x -x You're making this a lot more complicated than it has to be. What idiot says 0.333... doesn't equal 1/3. I didn't multiply I added. 0.333... + 0.333... = 0.666... It's very simple. Even if you did multiply 0.333 x 2 = 0.666... 2a. Makes absolutely no sense. How does 0.3 + 0.3 or multiplied by 2 = 0.7? 2a2. 1/3 = 0.3 2/3 = 0.6 3/3 = 0.9 Again, how does 0.3 x 2 = 0.7? 2b2. 1/3 = 0.33 2/3 = 0.66 3/3 = 0.99 2c2. 1/3 = 0.333 2/3 = 0.666 3/3 = 0.999 No, I don't get the point. I really think you're trying to misinterpret my proofs now. I'll make it toddlerly simple: 0.999... < x < 1 What is x? If you admit there is no answer then you admit 0.999... = 1. There is no fraction to represent 0.999... Just like there is no fraction to perfectly represent pi. Now this question is silly. For the sake of the debate let's use the same calculator aka Google's calculator. You can find it by typing "calculator" in Google or Chrome. I said may not work as I assumed 20 would be enough for any calculator to show one. I don't think it's a limitation rather an understatement. At a certain number of 9's the calculator understands that you don't mean 0.9, you mean 0.999... to infinity. It's simply the threshold between thinking the person means 0.9 or 0.999... to infinity. Google's calculator does not show 0.6666 as 1. I just tapped the 6 key for two minutes and it equaled 2/3, further proving 2/3 = 0.666666... I believe I have sufficiently taken each of Con's multiple arguments/"dis-proofs" and refuted each one using sound, established, proven mathematical and computational theory. I welcome any rebuttal or comments from the voting public. Cheers! P.S. My E-mail is aden.m.kamath-at-gmail-dot-com
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

0.999... = 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x = 0.999... 10x = 9.999... 10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999... 9x = 9 x = 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/3 = 0.333... 2/3 = 0.666... 3/3 = 0.999... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What fraction/decimal number comes in between 0.999... and 1. Any two numbers that are different must have a difference of something. That something will be somewhere in between the two numbers Ex. 1.5 is in between 1 and 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put in 0. with 20 (it must be 20 or it may not work, 9's after it in a calculator and press =. It will say it equals 1.
Religions can be proved or disproved

So, you are saying that religion is just like science, it can be proven or disproved. There is a difference though. There are men in asylums with faith in their own delusions. But we have no way to prove if those delusions are actually real. I cannot give you much evidence but I can give you this: Some people believe in one God. Some people believe in multiple Gods. Some people believe in no Gods. Only one of them has to be true. Or can all of them be true. We'll never know, because science hasn't and will never advance to the point where we can prove religions. There's no possible way. All we can do is ponder. All we can do is believe. That's why we call it religions.
Religions can be proved or disproved

Religions can be definitively disproven or proven based on the legitimacy of their claims. For example, you can prove fundamentalist christianity wrong by demonstrating that evolution is true, and thus a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible must be wrong. And I'd like to ask why faith is worth anything. There's men in asylums with complete faith in their own delusions, but that adds no legitimacy. Why should I believe anything without evidence?
Religions can be proved or disproved

Religion. There are hundreds of religions in the world. To start off, there's Christianity, then Islam, then Judaism, and lots of other ones. People that stand strong by their religions believe that it can be proved and the other religions can be disproved. I say no. Not to break anyone's dreams or anything, but religions can never be proved or disproved, and they should stay that way. It's all about the leap of faith you take. The leap of faith that can change your life.
the death penalty should be completely abolished, No exceptions

As a response to your first argument, That quote is fully an opinion, Not based in fact. As a response to your second argument, Why would murderers ever get less time than thieves. Murderers should definitely be punished in some way. In your third argument you are saying in essence that taxpayer money is more important than LIFE. Secondly, This part of your argument is false. "Matthew J. Hickman and law professor Robert C. Boruchowitz, With research support by Alexa D. O"Brien"determined that, On average, Oklahoma capital cases cost 3. 2 times more than non-capital cases. Reviewing 15 state studies of death penalty costs conducted between 2000 and 2016, The study found that, Across the country, Seeking the death penalty imposes an average of approximately $700, 000 more in case-level costs than not seeking death. " -Deathpenaltyinfo. Org.
the death penalty should be completely abolished, No exceptions

I personally find it extremely dumb to argue against the death penalty. Unlike all other arguments in polotics, I don't understand how someone could not support capital punishment. Here is why I beleive it is good. 1. It is a cosmic injustice to allow a murderer to keep his life. - Dennis Prager 2. Killing murderers is society"s only way to teach how terrible murder is. The only real way a society can express its revulsion at any criminal behavior is through the punishment it metes out. If murderers all got 10 years in prison and thieves all got 20 years in prison, That would be society"s way of saying that thievery is worse than murder. A society that kills murderers is saying that murder is more heinous a crime than a society that keeps all its murderers alive. - Dennis Prager 3. It costs less to kill them than to keep them in a cell for life costing taxpayer moeney. 4. Your side of the argument is very flawed. Big difference between us and them. They murder, We kill. BIG DIFFERENCE, Learn them. 5. It can deter crime. Now please prove to me why capital punishment should be outlawed.
Charities should be forced to prove where their money is actually going.

Thank you for the debate topic, I hope this will be an enlightening discussion for us both. Not sure if we are making arguments first round but since no prerequisite was made I will assume its okay. Pro asks why Africa is still a 3rd world continent after 33 years of raising millions? Well the fact of the matter is that the money being sent to these places is sent to give commodities such as food and water to the people who are suffering. And usually its given to people in power to distribute which allows for exploitation in many different forms. Beside that the commodities that are given away don't improve infrastructure or give incentives for business to form or thrive in that area. So just because these charitable goods are being given doesn't mean they will be benefiting the society as a whole. All they do is provide temporary relief to specific groups of people. This is at least for most cases of charity. To the issue of charities needing to tell you exactly what they are spending the money on the only thing you need to look at is the charity as a private or public charity. If the charity is private then you have no right to see what they are spending the money on unless it is said in making the donation that you can. As a private entity the charity organization can do whatever they want with your money and they can choose not to tell you. This is why people should be hesitant with charity. It is solely your faith in this charity and its promise that gets you to donate. But once you have made that donation its their money. As a private entity they can do what they want with their money just like any other entity. Its like if you get paid and your boss wants to know that the money he's paying you is going to your livelihood. Its none of his business even though he's transferring that money to you. Its because at the point of transfer its your money. If you don't trust the charity don't donate to it. But you cant force a private charity to show where the money is going. Whether its going to giving goods to poor people or going to advertisements to help garner more donations or maybe to pay the people working for it.
Science, by itself, can determine moral truths

My opponent has failed to understand points behind my argument and has made claims of connections I have never made.HE HAS NOT REFUTED THE LOGICAL PREMISES AND CONCLUSIONS I CREATED IN ROUND 2.Final Statement on My PositionMy opponent has failed to understand my argument and has fallen to straw man fallacy [1] (because he cites fallacies)...Pirsig and Kant - I presented these philosphers to show that the world should not be defined in Hume's strong division between value and fact, which you used as a basis to say science can not create moral truths. I did not use them to say they defined moral truth. They were a rebuttal and basis to include values in fact driven statements.My opponent has dropped my presented premises and conclusions that can be done through testable methods and found in emperical data. This has been dropped for two rounds now!My opponentSays value and fact should be separated and cites an antique philopher studied now more for the history of philosphy over being right. My opponent has failed to argue against my core argument and has instead fallen to semantics saying that I did not properly define good and goodness.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Science, by itself, can determine moral truths

Fact/Value Distinction:I think something Con and I can defnitily agree on is that philosphy is changing and there are a number of rivaling philosphies at any given time.Kant and Pirsig use the same initial basis as Hume but branch in a different direction. While Hume refuses to connect value and fact, Kant and Pirsig decide to.Kant and Pirsigs both present that fact and value ae not as distinct as Hume said. Kant presents that some level of value is used to decide which facts are to be analyzed and used. Pirsig exteneded on this defining that the interaction expressed by Kant is "Quality". This Quality is the interaction, the meeting point of value and facts. We all know that Apple products have quality, but define the quality they have. They are comparitive to other products, have a more limiting operating system but are well built and have an amazing customer support. Yet we know cheaply made, technoligicaly inferior products lack quality. Quality has a dualism of value and fact about it that refutes Hume's claim that they are separate.This dualism allows us to go foward and talk about morality because it is able to be evalutated on value and fact, "quality", while with Hume this was not possible.This rebuttaled your initial round.GoodI feel like this is getting into semantics but ok.Webster Dictionary - "of a favorable character or tendency". This is a fact based "good" which evaluates the moralities I presented as beneficial to the individual and those around him.We establish what is benificial of us as having a favorable tendency so "good". What is beneficial for the group will be placed as a communal pressure on each other to follow the beneficials actions/rules, thus creating morality.ConclusionMy debate stands and the premises/conclusions I layed out were never refuted. Con does not have an established argument on how science can not be used to create morality.
Science, by itself, can determine moral truths

Hi,Thank you for your arguments. Below is my rebuttal.Failure to provide reasons against the fact/value distinctionYou claim that more modern philosophy refutes the Humean fact/value distinction. You are overstating what modern philosophy has done. In fact, the distinction is a very lively topic of debate and is far from refuted.Also, you fail to provide actual arguments against the fact/value distinction. Rather you make dubious appeals to authority. Please summarize how Kant allows empirical data to form the basis of moral beliefs. Or how Pirsig's arguments do the same. It is not enough to just state that this has been proved, one should show a little of the proof itself. Equivocation on the use of the word "good"You are using the word good in two ways in your principal argument. You even implicitly acknowledge this when you use quotations around the words "good" and "bad", as if to acknowledge that they are being used in a complicated way. You seem to be using goodness to mean morally good but also what is good in terms of benefits to individuals. However, these are not the same thing.Why should "benefit to us" be the ultimate definition to goodness? You have not provided an argument to justify this identity. For example, perhaps benefits are not morally relevant as is argued by deontologists (1) or perhaps what maters is not that which benefits us but what is preferred by a supreme being as in divine command theory (2). I do not endorse these positions but just wish to point out how you have not justified your use of the word "good".Given you have failed to provide the premise that "Goodness means what is beneficial to us", your argument is invalid. You need to provide this premise and more importantly, reasons why we should accept it.ConclusionYour argument is invalid because it does not explain why benefits to humans are equal to goodness. Perhaps you could offer a compelling proof of why this is the case. But in its absence, your argument fails.1 http://en.wikipedia.org...2 http://en.wikipedia.org...
Science, by itself, can determine moral truths

*eats a baby*I will be arguing that we can thorugh logical create a moral code.I would like to highlight the statement now - "I mean morality to be the abstract system of values used to judge human affairs."Since this is a debate over whether science alone could create morals, and Con made no mention of it: Humans orginated from evolution in all my arguments and will be assumed to be true for this debate. Obviously if we were created by God in a biblical context then we would have automatically been exposed to moral codes and standards by non-science data.Looking forward to this debate.
Science, by itself, can determine moral truths

I mean morality to be the abstract system of values used to judge human affairs. I am not referring to actual moral practices but to an ideal moral code that most moral realists would be referring to when they use the word "morality". The resolution is that science can provide us with moral truths all by itself. I will take the con position and argue that science provides an insufficient basis for morality. I have been mulling over this topic after reading some recent statements by the new atheists such as Sam Harris or Lawrence Krauss. I look forward to an interesting debate. Please ask questions in the comment section should you need further clarification.
Good can exist without Evil

If there was only good, and no evil, it would not be considered good, it would just be normal. Since there is no contradiction between on or the other, there would be no making choices, and it would be everyday life to live in. Say there was suddenly no evil. What would this be? Can we say good if there is no opposite to good? Can we say, "don't do that."? It would make no sense without evil, for you are leading the person away from making a decision. There would be a one way path, and having the other way be impossible. If it wasn't for evil, this concept of good would never be created. It would be considered the norm and not anything special. Because evil exists, we can understand what good is, therefore good cannot exist without evil.
Good can exist without Evil

First of all, your logic is contradictory. If you define evil as being "the absence of good" then I could easily just say good is instead "the absence of evil." There is no way to prove that evil comes from good or good comes from evil. The way you define evil creates a circular argument that has no conclusion. You also say that there is no such thing as evil because it is no more than an English word with a negative connotation, but yet again the same can apply to the word good. Both are just words. While good and evil are merely perceptions that are an extension of yin and yang, their idea can't exist without the other. Like light and shadow and hot and cold, they are opposite ideas that if we didn't have one of them we would't give the remaining a name. It would be nothingness, a standard thing, BORING! The remaining would no longer exist as a positive or negative force. The concept of beauty would be unable to grasp without concept of ugliness. You can't know good if you don't know evil, its as simple as that.
Good can exist without Evil

This is only my fourth..........And thx for accepting this debate...... One doesn't need a Ph.D. in theology to look around the world and realize something is desperately wrong. The existence of evil is one of the most vexing challenges a Christian or any person, for that matter must grapple with. It's occupied the minds of great Christian thinkers since the beginning, including St. Augustine (354-430). For much of his life he worked hard at a solution. St. Augustine's approach was not just brilliant; it was practical. His insight is intellectually credible and emotionally satisfying in that it gives hope and offers meaning to anyone trying to make sense out of life. http://www.str.org... Central to Augustine's idea of goodness (and, consequently, evil) was the notion of being. To Augustine, anything that had being was good. God as the ground of being was perfectly good, along with everything he brought into being. This goodness was a property that came in varying degrees. Since all that God made is good, even those things which appear evil only appear that way because of a limited context or perspective. When viewed as a whole, that which appears to be evil ultimately contributes to the greater good. http://www.str.org... This shows what St. Augustine meant: http://www.youtube.com... It seems that most people, whether they be religious or not, believe in something called "evil". The problem is, there is no such thing as evil because "evil" is really nothing more than an English word we use to label an action or experience which we perceive in a negative way. If nobody had emotions or the ability to feel discomfort or pain then nobody would believe in evil. There is no such thing as evil as a force that is opposite of good. Evil in essence the absence of good. There is only one true force and that is "good". All other feelings, emotions, forces or whatever we define it as, are just a perversion of good. Hate, anger, fear, greed, joy, jealousy, etc, are dependent on good. A good(no pun intended) analogy would be that is no such thing as darkness. Darkness is not a force that is self-generating, it only exists because their is an absence of light. http://www.youtube.com...
Good can exist without Evil

Alright, this is my first debate so.... whatever. Evil cannot exist without good simply because they are the fabric of existence, just like yin and yang (dark and light), one cannot exist without the other. You can't have death with no life and life with no death, since death is the opposite of life and life is the opposite of death. Good and evil coexist together, and if you get rid of one you get rid of the other. Friedrich Nietzsche explained that life is composed of two sides, happiness and depression. You can live your life with very little sadness, but in exchange you get very little happiness. He proclaimed to "Live your Life!" Risk your life for life!" meaning that you should risk the chance of extreme sadness for the equally great chance of extreme happiness. Just like good and evil, without happiness and depression, we would not exist at all, either as sinner or saints. Another thing is if everything is good than there is no good because you wouldn't know what good is because you wouldn't have anything to compare it with. For example if everything was beautiful and there was no ugliness in the world then you wouldn't know what beauty was because you would have nothing to compare it too. Everything must have an opposite in order to exist.
Abortion

Let me make it clear to Pro, so we don't have any miss understanding, to rebut Pro putting words in my mouth, I DO NOT support abortion because of my understanding of the physical laws of nature complemented with my moral support for all of humanity's "unalienable Rights" in any stage of life. I also agree with Pro that, "A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body"; as Pro defined in the first sentence of Round 1. My debate with Pro is in his second sentence of Round 1 where he stated, "Therefore, abortion is an accepted practice. " NOT with this kid and with many others; or why have this debate in the first place? I do not support abortion for it kills a human entity who has "unalienable Rights" defined by the physical laws of nature of which no philosophy or man-made law can change. On top of that, the tyranny of government is forcing me to pay for such an immoral activity enslaving me to capitulate to their decree. Just because I do not support abortion, has nothing to do with a woman's freedom to choose what she wants to do with her body. My point is if Pro's claim to "abortion is an accepted practice," then why are we having this debate in the first place? That is, because abortion is NOT "an accepted practice" debunking Pro's claimed in Round 1. If Pro is concerned about over population, education is the much preferred solution over genocide; but if ignorance prevails, the physical laws of nature will settle the matter.
Abortion

Rather than discussing the positives vs the negatives of abortion, con has simply claimed that "abortion" "enslaves" people into paying for their abortions. Would con be fine then if the woman had to pay for her own abortion? If so, then I don't see the problem; con would therefore agree that abortion is okay if the woman pays for it. Con's entire argument, however, about being "enslaved" would apply to the pro abortion side, not his side. In other words, con is arguing my side for me. If we became anti-abortion, then we'd all have to pay for unwanted babies that mother's were forced to have. This averages around 250k PER kid. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Not only that, but this is simply the cost of raising a kid until he or she is 18. What if they can't find a job? Due to technology, we are moving AWAY from jobs, not towards jobs. We are already overpopulated as is; imagine what FORCING mother's to have kids they don't want would do to us. Talk about enslavement! We already have 100k orphans who are not adopted, and that's WITH allowing abortion. If we didn't allow abortion, that number could easily approach 1 million. https://showhope.org...