BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
0.9999 (repeating) = 1

Normally debates are about opinions. This is about fact. I maintain that 0.9999 (going on forever) is the same thing mathematically, and realistically as 1. I expect my opponent to have an understanding of math, such as basic algebra, and rules of infinity. First round is for acceptance AND posting arguments. For the sake of simplicity, the term 0.999... will mean 0.999 repeating. FAIR WARNING: This is a mathematical fact. The evidence is on my side. If you choose to accept this argument, you will have to argue against something that is a fact not an opinion. In the sake of fairness, I will post my argument first so as not to blindside someone who did not realize that this has already been proved. My arguments: The philosophical argument: If there is no difference between two things, they are the same thing. This goes for numbers, objects, colors, or anything else in existence. That being said, if you subtract (finding the difference) 0.999... from 1 you will get 0.000...(repeating for infinity) In other words, there is no difference. Therefore 1 and 0.999.. are the same thing.. (1-0.999...) = 0.00000000... You will never reach the point 1 ( 0.000....0001) at the end of the sequence, because the sequence has no end. IN ORDER FOR TWO NUMBERS TO BE DIFFERENT, THERE HAS TO BE A NUMBER BETWEEN THEM. If 0.999... and 1 where different numbers then there would exist a number between them. No such number exists. This is because you cannot put a digit at the end of an infinite sequence. The fractional argument: If 1/3 is equal to 0.333... (repeating) than 1 = 0.999... Proof: (1/3) + (1/3) + (1/3) = 1 (0.333...) + (0.333...) + (0.333..). = 0.999... Therefore 0.999... = 1 The Algebraic argument: assume that x = 0.999... (multiply both sides by 10) then 10x = 9.999... (subtract x from both sides) 10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999... 9x = 9 x=1 Notice how we started out with x = 0.999 and ended with x = 1, this is only possible if 0.999... = 1 http://www.mathsisfun.com... http://polymathematics.typepad.com... http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov... http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk...
0.9999 (repeating) = 1

Ultimately the decimal system itself shows that 0.999 does not equal 1, or quite simply it would have a 1 in front of the decimal. It does not, therefore 0.999 will always be less than 1. If 0.999 were the same as 1, it would have a 1 in front of the decimal, and because it does not it will always be less than 1. In essence 1.0 has the zero infinitely repeating, and 0.999 has the 9 infinitely repeating, but the difference is that one will always have a 9 and the other a 0 repeating, so one will always be less than the other. The only reason you cannot fit a number between 0.999. .. and 1, is that you can't write 0.999. .. in the first place. An infinitely repeating number is an imaginary, hypothetical concept, thus 0.999 is a hyperreal number rather than a real number, and its inverse is an infinitesimal. Regardless of the WolframAlpha site, all that would show is that there are conflicting beliefs on both sides of the debate. Because one source believes it's equal to 1 doesn't negate the fact that there are other experts who disagree. That there is room for debate consistent with the arguments I have laid out is seen from an article in the Mathematics Educator by Anderson Norton and Michael Baldwin, "Does 0.999. .. Really Equal 1? " As Norton and Baldwin point out:"Students may be justified in rejecting the equality if they decide to work in another system-namely the non-standard analysis of hyperreal numbers-but then they need to understand the consequences of that decision. .. Starting from 0, the point gets nine-tenths of the way to 1, then another nine-tenths of the remaining distance, and so on, but there is always some distance remaining (cf. Zeno’s paradox). This conception aligns with Aristotle’s idea of potential infinity and his rejection of an actual infinity: 0.999… is a process that never ends, producing a decimal expansion that is only potentially infinite and not actually an infinite string of 9’s. .. ". http://tme.coe.uga.edu...Norton and Baldwin also point out that 0.999. .. only "approximates" 1, you must in essence apply rounding to an infinitely repeating number to make it equal to 1. But a rounded number will never be the same as the number it is rounded to, even if representing it that way might help mathematicians sleep easier at night. They conclude that:"Nonstandard analysis provides a sound basis for treating infinitesimals like real numbers and for rejecting the equality of 0.999… and 1 (Katz & Katz, 2010). However, we will see that it also contradicts accepted concepts, such as the Archimedean property. "Again, per the source by Thomas J. Crow, hyperreal numbers include those that infinitely converge towards 1 as 0.999 most certainly does. . http://academic.brcc.edu...
Do you believe science will cure spinal cord injuries

In that case, i base my opinion on how paralysis is one of the hardest things to cure and I don't believe that within 7 years there will be a cure available that will show full recovery to the patient's damage to the spinal cord although its possible to achieve some minor improvements. I don't think a full recovery cure is possible at this time. I request the audience to award Pro conduct points as it's his first debate.
Do you believe science will cure spinal cord injuries

Pro has failed to meet his burden of proof in his argument. 'Do you believe science will cure spinal cord injuries'. My opponent then hasn't made clear what his point upholding the motion is. Instead he has provided information about current research. The criteria for the debate was 'Do you believe..' Then makes the guidelines clear that the cure should be able to treat '2020'. Whether or not Pro intended this to mean a full recovery or not.. we cannot decide. Well done Pro for opening the debate to irrelevant paths because spinal cord injuries can vary from pain to paralysis and death. So it would only be unfair for me to use Pro's mistakes against him and instead will choose to form an argument of some kind that perhaps he was expecting ... This is still unknown however.. Ok so firstly, you say that research is being carried out by (and thanks for including your references Pro) 'Neuralstem.inc' and 'Stemcell.inc'. Thanks to the power of the internet, I can base my research on them. I will firstly dismiss to the fact that the point he should make was why he believes a cure will be in place by 2020. Instead has made reference what the cure will involve i.e. (Treatments, physiotherapy and nutrition). And for that reason, he doesn't have a point for his own argument that answers the title of the debate. Therefore, I don't have anything to rebut against as how can I? How can I because I cannot prove the information from Stemcell.Inc and Neuralstem.Inc to be false as it can be found on their websites although Pro has made some of this misleading... I'm disappointed this round was wasted because he mis-addressed the title. However the final round can be nothing but a conclusion argument and unless he can re-address the debate how he wished it to be in the first place, this won't go anywhere. If you are new to debating, I understand as I myself have made misleading debate before without realising until my opponent made clear I was headed in the wrong direction. To conclude, Pro has not made a point which addresses the direction in this debate (Do you believe Science will cure spinal injuries by 2020). He has instead informed me about current activities that hasn't linked into a point. He could have used such though to back up a claim for 'clinical trials already happening' for example or something which would have answered the motion.
Do you believe science will cure spinal cord injuries

Well my first point to make is all stem cell and spinal cord injury researchers in general has stated a full cure will involve multiple things (Treatments, physiotherapy, nutrition etc). Neuralstem.inc is started the first spinal cord that so clinical trials with in the next few months, very exciting. Stemcell.inc started their neural cell trial almost 6 months ago I believe. And Invivo Therapeutics scaffold technology is ready to be released (For acute injuries, but later on is simply a technology that will hold stem cells, Enzymes and nutrients at injury site). This will be very exciting next few years for the spinal cord injury population.
Atheism is a religion.

Thank you for accepting. I look forward to an enjoyable debate. I will keep my argument for this round short. By sheer definition, atheism cannot possibly be a religion. Definition of Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Source: (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) Definition of Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Source: (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) There is a great comparison between the two. Atheism cannot possibly go under the category of religion as it would contradict what religion actually is. I look forward to your response.
Public schools provide better education than homeschooling.

I request that in the future, he separate his paragraphs with spaces. It makes his case much easier to read. Contention 1 Defense "There was a study I include in the book where hundreds of new public school teachers who went through a teacher college to get their "education" license told an interviewer that the "education" courses were a joke and waste of time. " I'd like to see a source for this. Until then, I will point out that it doesn't sound much like a study; teachers telling an interviewer that their education course was a joke? How is that a study? "These courses only taught the "philosophy" and history of education. " Why would they need to teach the actual subjects? Teachers can learn those on their own. What they really need to learn is not WHAT to teach, but HOW to teach. And, as my opponent agrees, that is exactly what a teaching course does. "A huge majority of these education "degree" graduates had never taken a single college course in the subject they ended up teaching in a public school. " Teachers can re-learn the material when it comes time to teach it. Getting that sort of information is not difficult. What really matters is being good at passing on knowledge. "Social studies teachers teach a watered-down, socialist version of American history that spits on American traditional values, etc. " I'm not going to respond to my opponent's other subject examples, since they prove nothing and I already adequately refuted them. But I wish to respond to this one just for fun. It makes no sense. Suddenly social studies is "socialist"? What does that mean? And how does history class spit on American traditional values (which are what exactly)? I spent four years learning about American history. How many years did I spend on world history? One. And this "spits on American traditional values"? "The majority of these "qualified" teachers FAILED the test! " a) How did they pass their teaching course then? b) Evidence please. ======== I have adequately refuted my opponent's rebuttal. My opponent has offered no rebuttals to my other three contentions, so they are considered conceded. My opponent has also offered no original arguments.
Public schools provide better education than homeschooling.

Contention 1 -- That public schools are more qualified. Opposing Argument --- In my book I point out that teacher education degrees and teacher colleges are the laughing stock of the academic community. There was a study I include in the book where hundreds of new public school teachers who went through a teacher college to get their "education" license told an interviewer that the "education" courses were a joke and waste of time. These courses only taught the "philosophy" and history of education. They did NOT teach the actual subjects these wannabee teachers would have to actually teach in a classroom. So these "qualified" teachers were not qualified in the least to teach kids how to read or do math. A huge majority of these education "degree" graduates had never taken a single college course in the subject they ended up teaching in a public school. For example, "English" teachers where never taught even the rudiments of the phonics teaching method, since the public schools have dropped teaching phonics a long time ago. So-called Math teachers now teach "fuzzy" math courses in public schools. Social studies teachers teach a watered-down, socialist version of American history that spits on American traditional values, etc. The main point is that far from being "qualified", public-school education "degree" graduates are at the bottom of the list of knowing the material they will be teaching on the job, and they're "training" is held in contempt and laughed at by students and professors in business and science courses at major universities, who have to really learn material they will use in the real world. There was a famous test a few years ago given to "graduates" of "qualified" teacher colleges in Massachusetts. These new teachers were given basic literacy and reading tests to determine their abilities in reading, writing, etc. The majority of these "qualified" teachers FAILED the test! So these "qualified" teachers in a classroom are like the blind leading the blind, and the notion that public schools are more "qualified" than a diligent homeschooling parent who studies the material she will teach her child, is a sad joke, sad for the 45 million school children in public schools today who suffer the consequences of being taught by anything but "qualified" teachers in the public schools.
Public schools provide better education than homeschooling.

DEFINITIONS By the resolution, I mean public schools and homeschooling in general, not in any specific case. For the sake of simplicity, let's limit this debate to high school (9th to 12th grade) in the United States. (My definitions, with help from Merriam-Webster) Public School: A school paid for by the government that is free to attend. Home School: (verb) To teach school subjects at home; (noun) An education center in which the teacher is the parent of the student and the student is taught at home. Education: Training in a variety of skills that will likely prove useful in a large set of potential future careers. ======== Contention 1: Public schools are more qualified. Anyone can teach homeschooling. But who is to say that the child will get the necessary education? At public school, every teacher must meet certain standards of qualification, e.g. must have a teaching degree. Students will learn what they need to know. No such guarantee can be had through home school. ======== Contention 2: Public schools offer much more teaching diversity. In public high schools, each student has six or more teachers, each an expert on one particular subject. When a student goes to public school, he can learn about the essential subjects from people who really know what they're talking about. At home school, there is only one (possibly two) teacher(s); no matter how skilled this teacher is, he or she cannot possibly match the sheer diversity achieved in a public school. ======== Contention 3: Public school has a strong board of education. Every state has a board of education. This board oversees homeschooling and private schooling as well, but their primary investment is in public school. When the board of education makes a decision, it is followed through in public school. Home schools are not run by the state board of education, nor must they follow the regulations of the board. ======== Contention 4: Public schools are accredited. When a school is accredited, this means it upholds certain necessary educational standards. Public schools, being government-funded, are virtually guaranteed to be accredited. But home schools have no such guarantee. And without being accredited, there are numerous problems that begin to arise. First, it is more difficult to get a diploma. Second, companies prefer to hire people who have gone to accredited schools, since they have been guaranteed to meet certain education standards. Third, colleges prefer people who have gone to accredited schools for the same reasons as companies. ======== Conclusion Homeschooling, while sometimes more fun, simply cannot be guaranteed to uphold the necessary educational standards. Public schools will always meet these standards. When you're being home schooled, you don't know what you're going to get. But with public schools, you are always guaranteed a certain level of education necessary for the development of the intellect and the acquisition of necessary life skills. [1] http://schools.nyc.gov... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Stupid" is a name

My argument is that "Stupid" is actually an adjective and NOT a name. However, it can be used as a name. As by the definition of stupid, it means, "not intelligent : having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things"http://www.merriam-webster.com...And in English, stupid is not a name by definition. It can be used as a name, however that is irrelevant. It is not even a common used name because I will now criticize my opponent's source. It appears that no one has used the name "Stupid" in the U.S and they have only used it in their website. The name "stupid" has no definition or origin. Simply put, in English, the word "Stupid" is NOT a name, however can be used as one which is not the case that my opponent is arguing for.
"Stupid" is a name

It's really a passion of mine, informing the world "Stupid" is, in fact, a name. INTRODUCTION:www. babycenter. com is a helpful site that has helped me and told me all sorts of reliable information before (for example, I learned my niece's name, Kayla, means "pure" in Greek--. http://www.babycenter.com...), and using that logic, here is all the proof you need to vote Pro:ARGUMENTS:. http://www.babycenter.com...If this reliable, well-known site says that "Stupid" is a name, you can't argue. CONCLUSION:Best of luck to my opponent! I hope you win! SOURCES:-Me-www. babycenter. com-. http://www.babycenter.com... -. http://www.babycenter.com...
People are born good

Nice rebuttal I DID define "good". If you're 'good' that could be many things. My definition in this debate is a force that openly resists a form of evil. But, because babies can't really do this, here is a example. You start a school year(Birth) and you have all A's(Good) but does this mean you have D's and E's(Bad)? No. Life is the same way. The school(God) you not classed as a bad student. Why people born are bad? It's one or the other.
People are born good

Yes, Master Yoda, babies aren't born bad or good, only "in the middle". Being good or bad is not like integers -4+4=0 Now I'll set a guideline . "Bad" means sinner, but hold your horses, good can mean alot of things. The way I'll use it is: A 'force acting against the evil in you.". God is judge. Those are my guidelines. God gets ALL babies a 'good check' on them. They could lose it, but they can't lose it. At their state.
People are born good

Ahhhh. Finally we get to the philologically part. True, tabula rasa is a part, which i will get to in a bit. "How can a baby be good if they do not have the knowledge or capacity to know what is right or wrong?" Let me ask you the same. How can a baby be bad if they do not have the knowledge or capacity to know what is right or wrong? Well thats up to you, babies, in a sense are born good. "How do you know people are born good if you do not know most people?" Just because you're born good, doesn't mean you will be a great person. Tabula rasa. Childhood is a test: Will good or will bad triumph? Goodness can be anything. You can sin all you want, but at the end if your sorry, goodness won.
People are born good

Okay, do you have any real life examples to support that babies are good. I am not saying babies are bad, I am saying that they are tabula rasa, clean slates. John Locke an English philosopher came up with this theory of tabula rasa. Their environment and surrounding determine how they grow up. How can a baby be good if they do not have the knowledge or capacity to know what is right or wrong? Define good or bad. What does it mean to you? How do you know people are born good if you do not know most people? What is good or bad to you may be opposite for me.
People are born good

Okay what did they do that was bad? Being born? Can a BABY sin(or do something bad ). Babies usually build their character in child hood. You can also be something but not know what it is. How are they bad? Your not telling me. Inheritance? Thats alright wrong. Satan could have a kid, but is give the baby to God, the baby will most likely be better then a Satan baby. You cant be in the middle. back to the school. Can you pass and fail? No
Abortion should be illegal...after 6 weeks

First off, I would like to say a few things. Opponent, I understand your position and I wish you the best of luck. My position on abortion is that it should be legalized. Now, I shall move forward and get on with the argument: 1) You are a bit unclear on the whole thing about rape and I am assuming that you are saying that a woman could falsely say that she was raped and get an abortion. But first, a whole entire investigation must occur in which the law enforcement is involved and if the rapist is not identified, the accusation is put down, making your entire argument illegitimate. But if a woman was really raped and impregnated, why should she live with a child that reminds her everyday about that fatal and traumatic incident? 2) Many of the Americans living in the rural have to take a long trip in order to get to the nearest hospital to find out that they are pregnant or if they want to file an abortion. This means that it will take around six weeks before a female notices that she is pregnant and by then, it will be too late to get an abortion if the six week law is legalized. Lets say she was raped and doesn't know that she was impregnated, which, unfortunately, happens to a lot a victims of rape. That would be highly unfortunate for her and she will have to live with the child, meaning that she will be reminded everyday about her being raped. 3) You say that the fetus is not part of the female body and that the fetus has its own DNA. I agree with this but you have to consider that without the mother, the fetus will be non-existent and that it is thus technically attached to the female including the fact that the fetus is also physically attached to the female. etc., etc. It was also researched that a fetus has no self-awareness and no consciousness, thus it can also be called dead. 4) A fetus is not legally or scientifically a person or human being so abortion cannot be equated to murder or taking a life since the fetus is not a person nor alive. Thank you for your time, but I will add that i am a male and if you are a male also, we have no right to make laws about something that will never happen to us, thus it is really up to the women to decide. Once again thank you for your time. http://www.news24.com...