BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
.999... is equal to 1

Now I know full good and well that most of you reading this debate actually believe that .999... is equal to 1. I will now help you understand why you and my opponent are wrong entirely. There is no question in my mind that 1 and .999... recurring forever is not equal but entirely two different numbers. The first logic most people refer to, and correctly so, is the concept that .999... is a theoretical number in which it is the number closest to one but still not 1. This is a wise individuals first thoughts when someone attempts to suggest that 1 is equal to .999... Now my opponent attempts to prove this silly notion with mathematics, and this is the point where most people sacrifice their intellect and simply accept that the Theoretical number .999... is equal to one. So before I move on logically, at first glance, 1 does not equal .999... This is going to get complex, but if you think about it you will understand. Now here is the flaw in the algebraic examples my opponent is providing. They are numbering systems that are based on 10. Most of you only have conceptualized numbering systems based on 10 but it doesn't have to be based on 10. It could just as easily based on lets say 8, this is where you must really use your intellect to understand. If the numbering system was 8 lots of things remain the same, however a few important things change, namely decimals. Now lets say we have the number system of 8. 1/8 now would equal .1 and 1/4 would equal .2. 1/3 would now equal .375 as opposed to .333... This may sound silly but you have to understand that decimals simply represent the numbering system chosen and my opponent is using 10. Now regardless of which numbering system you use whether it is 8 or 10 one third (1/3) will be equal to (1/3) however the way the number is represented in decimal form changes. So if my opponent was using the numbering system based on 8 he would be arguing that .777... recurring forever is equal to 1, which of course is also incorrect. To help you better understand numbering systems our calendar months per year is based on 12. If you wanted to represent half a year it would be 6 months. Represented using a numbering/numeral system based on 10 the decimal representation of half would be .5. A 12 numbering system would represent the decimal of .6. A 8 numbering system would have 6 months represent .4 in decimal format. All systems would still represent the 6 months as 6/12 in fraction representation. So if you can see it is simply the decimal representation of the fraction that varies according to the numbering/numerical system. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... The error with in my opponents algebraic expressions is the decimal system based on 10. The 10 system is the most widely used system in the world today, and many find it difficult to understand other systems because it is like learning math all over. So to close the Logical answer is: The theoretical number that is closest to One is not the equal to one.
.999... is equal to 1

My opponent's arguments can be dismantled rather easily. First off, he makes no actual attempt to question the process of the proof, that is, he doesn't deny that 10x - x = 9.999. .. - x and that the next logical process is 9x = 9. His main point is that 9x actually equals "8.99 forever with a one at the end". I don't even feel that the logical fallacy needs to be pointed out here, but I'll do it anyway. If it is 8.99 forever then there is no 'one at the end'. Infinity by definition is not a finite number, it is not a really large number, it is not even a number. There is no 'one at the end' at all. Now let me pose a different proof that I'm sure my opponent will find hard to poke through: 1/3 = 0.333. .. [basic math, check your calculator] 3*(1/3) = 3*(0.333. .. ) [multiply each side by 3] 3/3 = 0.999. .. 1 = 0.999. .. The same proof works for 1/9 1/9 = 0.111. .. 9*(1/9) = 9*(0.111. .. ) 9/9 = 0.999. .. 1 = 0.999. .. The fact that my opponent points out that the proof doesn't work for finite numbers is exactly my point. It will only work for 0.999. .. I was going to make that point, but my opponent has done it for me. Instead, I'll show that only 0.999. .. = 1, not any other recurring decimal. 0.888. .. = x 8.888. .. = 10x 8.888. .. - x = 10x - x 8 = 9x x = 0.888. .. 0.888. .. = 0.888. .. Note how it only works for 0.999. .. = 1. My opponent's key flaw is that he does not instand the concept of a recurring number, there is no 'one at the end' for such a number because there is no end. There are no mathematical or algebraic errors in the proof presented, and my opponent has not pointed out any. 0.999. .. = 1 This is mathematically true and it is not even open for debate.
.999... is equal to 1

.999... = 1 is a false statement. Definitions .999... refers to .9 with recurring nines 1 refers to the real number, 1 = means is exactly equal to .999... is actually equal to .999... not one. Many people simply round, however some say it actually equals 1, which is false Most people that contend 1 is = to .999... usually provide the below mathematical proof. Step 1) Let x = .999... Step 2) 10x = 9.999... (multiplying RHS and LHS by 10) Step 3) 10x - x = 9.999... - x (subtracting x from both sides) Step 4) 9x = 9 Step 5) x = 1 Conclusion .999... = 1 HOWEVER if you will notice step 4 is incorrect. It refers to 9x=9. This is wrong it actually equals 9x=8.999...1 or 8.99forever with a one at the end. Lets deal with finite to illustrate. Step 1) Let x = .999 (just 3 of them, not infinite) Step 2) 10x = 9.99 (multiplying RHS and LHS by 10) Step 3) 10x - x = 9.99 - x (subtracting x from both sides) Step 4) 9x = 8.991 (there is always one 9 less than x and a 1 at the end) Step 5) x = .999 Conclusion .999 doesn't equal 1
Death Note is the best anime ever

1. I agree, it's a very cool plot. But it does have some problems. For example, how come nobody ever questions how Kira carries out his killings? This is a major problem, since the story takes place in a realistic setting with no fantastical qualities outside of the Death Note itself. 2. How is this a reason why the show is good? The title is just the name of an object that people in the show use. That would be like if the entire Star Wars saga was called "Lightsaber". 3. All ages? The story is very complex for children, not to mention the inherent darkness of the main character being a mass murderer. It's clearly aimed at adults and especially teens. 4. What's wrong with "inappropriate" scenes? Death Note holds back on sexually charged scenes because the series doesn't need them. There are many movies and shows as good as Death Note or better that have nude and sex scenes to further the story. Some examples from Japan include Akira, Ghost in the Shell, and Evangelion. 5. Yes, the dynamic between L and Light is amazing. But it isn't really a fair fight. Light is pitted up against the world, and since L is not only his intellectual equal but has the entire government and police force on his side, the battle was in L's favor for much of the series. 6. On the contrary, both have sinister motives. Light is a sociopath who wants to wipe out everyone he deems "evil" just so he can create a perfect world with himself as God; a shockingly simple-minded, idealistic goal for such an intelligent character. L isn't as bad, but willingly deceives his friends and puts others' lives at risk in his ruthless quest to discover Kira. Even the creator of Death Note, Tsugumi Ohba, admits that L is "slightly evil". 7. The plot does change, but it has its slow moments. Sometimes the suspense is lost, like when it focuses on the police investigation rather than Light's plans. It's a good show overall, but it has its tedious moments. 8. Are they? I could see why someone might call L "cute" because of his weird, childish mannerisms, but what about the other characters? Light is like a creepy serial killer, Misa is more sexy than cute, and Ryuk is terrifying. 9. The concept of both sides losing is a good one, but the execution is questionable. Light changes his character drastically just to serve the plot; I know they were trying to make a statement about his hubris bringing about his own downfall, but he was so dumb in the last few episodes. 10. Every episode moves the plot along somewhat, but there are definitely some boring episodes where not much happens. I would prefer a show to give interesting filler rather than a dull plot-based episode. 11. The dub is decent, but the Japanese cast is much better. But neither of them even come close to the English dub for Cowboy Bebop. 12. True. But the music is just okay by anime standards.I would like to note that my opponent has made points about why Death Note is a good anime, not the best. I wouldn't have a problem with this if she didn't insist that I had to refute all of her points. I hope the voters will keep this in mind.
Death Note is the best anime ever

Ok, now its time for me to tell my opponent and the voters, why exactly death note is the best anime ever Reasons;- 1. It has a very nice story. 2. The name is really accurate. 3. It is an anime for all ages. 4. It doesn't have any inappropriate scenes. Which many other animes do. 5. The antagonist and protagonist both are equally capable. None of them lacks in any quality needed to win. That makes it a fair competition. 6. Both have correct motives. 7. Through out the anime the plot continually changes and suspense remains intact. 8. The characters are really cute. 9. The ending is extremely fair bc L and light both die in the end and all the viewers either belonging to L team or Light team lose. And no one really wins in the end. 10. No fillers. 11. Great English dub with subtitles. 12. Awesome songs. That's all I've got for now. My opponent HAS to refute the points I've made with valid reasons.
The U.S. senate should abolish the filibuster

1. Global Warming is different subject entirely, dragging it in here is uneeded, but why is the federal government the only way to fix that "problem"? 2. I"ve already rebutted that, no one candidate has a mandate for change from the entire country 3. The Filibuster and discussion surrounding it lengthened out the process, whereas a 50+1 majority would"ve eliminated it in one fell swoop. It would not have been re-enacted even if democrats won. The threat of filibuster saved the program. 4) The Federal Government has no duty to be "responsive" to voters. Voters are generally, not a well informed group, subject to rapid manipulation by the media, and will go on frenzies before learning the truth, and often even after then, just look at the recent Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida. The majority of people in the country were convinced for a period of time that Zimmerman was hunting some innocent black kid and shot him for no reason, and they edited tapes, refused to show pictures of injuries to Zimmerman, never showed maps of the area in context with the phone calls. And huge segments of the population wanted to amend self defense laws right away because the media told them the law allowed you to kill people and get away with it". I don"t want the full power of the federal government immediately responsive to the will of low information voters. I don"t care if I agree or disagree with the present craze. Being deliberative and slow in making law helps insure good law is being made, as opposed to laws passed in response to moral panic that become impossible to repeal. 5. Even if senators and politicians are punished "at the ballot box" the laws they passed 50+1 style will still be law, and very rarely is law ever repealed. 6. What is "The will of the people" how is that measured? Who records that? Why is "the will of the people" automatically right? It used to be the "will of the people" that you could own people as property, or that women stay at home away from school or jobs".. will of the people is a silly argument. And as I"ve covered, allowed the federal government to oppress everyone in the country because 51 people are convinced they"re doing the right thing is a recipe for disaster"..
The U.S. senate should abolish the filibuster

I think that this debate is not going to be one of a most official attitude. My argument continues. Senator Harry Reid"s recent pledge to reform the filibuster is welcome, but in an era of extreme polarization, modest procedural change won"t enable the government to fix critical problems like global warming. President Obama should encourage Senator Reid to oversee the elimination of the filibuster now, while neither party controls Congress, so that legislators have time to adjust before the return of one-party rule and the consequent enactment of more aggressive legislation. When voters elect officials with a clear mandate for change, the filibuster prevents them from accomplishing much. Members of both parties fear that eliminating the filibuster would jeopardize cherished programs. But President George W. Bush"s failed attempt to privatize Social Security contains an important lesson about policy continuity. He did not fail because Democratic senators threatened a filibuster, but because the public supports Social Security. If activists believe strongly in a program that the other side wants to gut, they should convince the public of its merits and then rely on popular will, not the filibuster, to preserve it. Far from destabilizing democracy, ending the filibuster would strengthen our political system by reducing cynicism in government. When voters of either party send elected officials to Washington with a clear mandate for change, the filibuster prevents them from accomplishing most of what the voters want, and inaction confirms popular suspicions about government"s inability to improve citizens" lives. Eliminating the filibuster would reduce cynicism by making government more responsive to voters, especially after landslide elections. Counterintuitively, killing the filibuster would curtail polarization as well. If politicians ever delivered on extreme pledges that lacked majority support, for example privatizing Social Security, they would be punished harshly at the ballot box. The filibuster allows candidates from both parties to run on extreme positions that they know will never become law; its absence would encourage moderation over time. As dysfunctional as the filibuster may be, minority factions used to have many more options for obstructing deliberation in the House and the Senate, both of which have curtailed procedures that once impeded majority rule. President Obama should urge Senator Reid to align himself with this proud tradition, and to work with members of both parties who believe that Congress"s proper role is to reflect, not stymie, the will of the people.
The U.S. senate should abolish the filibuster

I am relatively new to this website, so please excuse my style, I"m big on point by point rebuttal. My counters to your argument would be 1) While eliminating the filibuster might reduce skepticism in the political process, it may lead to people feeling cheated by the system if their view is not in the majority. 2) Voters all want "change" in the political system, but there are numerous factions throughout the country, and the balance of power in congress shifts frequently. For instance, voters in the Northeast are more likely to support gun control while voters in the Pacific Northwest or the Deep south are more likely to oppose gun control. The south east is more likely to have anti abortion legislators then the west coast. So while most senators are elected with "mandates" from their state, the issues the voters of each individual senator that they expect to resolve are far different. 3) The system set up in the constitution is not meant to encourage quick change, in fact the separation of powers is intended to make legislating on controversial issues difficult. 4) While filibusters can be misused, they are preferable to allowing any legislation passed in a 50+1 fashion. I believe a super majority should be required to pass new legislation, the use of filibusters gives relevance to the minority of a political debate and forces the majority to address those issues in order to pass legislation. Therefore it increases the likelihood that a mutually agreeable deal can be worked out or that the majority party can agree to support an issue championed by the opposing side. Another issue is that federal legislation is very difficult to repeal and in many cases, the status quo is preferable to passing a bad law, the ability of the senate to hold up bad legislation until it is fixed is a valuable option.
The U.S. senate should abolish the filibuster

The U.S. senate should abolish the filibuster PROP DEfinitions: filibuster-the use of irregular or obstructive tactics by a member of a legislative assembly to prevent the adoption of a measure generally favored skepticism or to force a decision against the will of the majority U.S. senate-the upper house of the United States Congress PROP POINTS It won"t do harm to the government The power can be abused PROP SOURCES http://www.nytimes.com... ttp://www.becker-posner-blog.com... Far from destabilizing democracy, ending the filibuster would strengthen our political system by reducing skepticism in government we want to strengthen the political system and reduce the skepticism of the government When voters of either party send elected officials to Washington with a clear instruction for change, the filibuster stops them from accomplishing most of what the voters want, and inactivity confirms popular suspicions about government"s inability to improve citizens" lives it would reduce the amount of skepticism by making the government a lot more responsive or quick to react to the voters of the U.S. therefore improving our lives this would especially help after elections were it was a landslide and it was very clearly dominated The power of the filibuster can be misused the filibuster, especially in its present smooth form, creates a supermajority needed to enact federal legislation this gives unfair advantages and will be misused by many people and it will be effective for many but there is no supermajority requirement to enact ordinary legislation that the President does not veto, though the framers of the Constitution may have known that there were filibusters in the House of Commons and if so may have realized there could be filibusters in the Senate The reason is that it benefits all Senators, not just those who expect to be in a smaller number, because it arms every Senator to demand an exception in exchange for voting for cloture
We should lower the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) to 18.

"The brain never finishes developing, it learns new and different things every day." The developmentation of the brain is irrelevant to knowledge given by the world. I never said people make "great" descisions when they're 21. However, their bodies are fully functional and developed. It's the law system that attempts to prevent/enforce bad choices. We can not control that. However, we can control primal times to give them this privilege, which is correctly put at 21. Please, =VOTE CON=
We should lower the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) to 18.

Sorry, computer disconnected. Thanks for accepting! "the brain isn't finished devolping until 21"(developing), the brain never finishes developing, it learns new and different things every day. "they cannot make the best decisions while sober OR drunk until they fully develop this." Which by what you've said is 21. So then we obviously make great decisions when we reach 21. So people who start smoking at age 21 is okay then because we make the best decisions at 21. Invalid argument. Pro
We should lower the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) to 18.

(<500 words?!) The brain isnt finished devolping until 21 (especially judgmental cortex). Therfore, they cannot make the best decisions while sober OR drunk until they fully develop this. On specified military bases, drinking under 21 is, in fact, legal. As for contracts, etc., that doesn't further impair judgement like alcohol. That's why it is illegal if you're not 21. Thusly, I heavily urge you to =VOTE CON=
We should lower the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) to 18.

Brief debate. Lower the Drinking Age to 18. When any person becomes 18, he or she becomes an adult. We are given the responsibilities of moving out, signing contracts, getting married, and we are even sent off to war with destructive weapons. Other "grants" include the right to vote and to be held accountable for our actions and crimes we commit. So how is it put in the right sense that even with all the responsibilities that are entrusted to adults, we are not trusted to drink beer or liquor?
Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal In ALL States

A societal acceptance of same sex relationships gives vulnerable children the impression that same sex relationships are good, moral and healthy. Not only does the Bible condemn such behavior, but medical professionals have affirmed that these kinds of sexual relationships are unhealthy. A society that accepts immoral relationships cause children to stumble into immorality. Jesus Christ said that "if anyone causes one of these little one"s to stumble, (sin) it would be better if he put a mill stone around his neck and throw himself into the sea." Matthew 18:6 Acceptance of these unnatural acts sets a society up for gender and sexual confusion, which brings about widespread immorality, which tears the family down. Logically speaking, if everyone"s sexuality was expressed heterosexually, then humanity will survive and perpetuate our own kind for generations to come. But simply put, if everyone"s sexuality was expressed homosexually, we would go extinct. Therefore homosexuality is counter productive to the survival of the human race. Children need the stability of a traditional family. Children need a real male Father and a female Mother for proper and healthy development. Naturally speaking, there is the necessity of each of the male and female contributions to a child"s life. (It has already been proven that boys without fathers end up in jail and practice destructive behaviors a great deal more than those who have fathers.) The vast majority of the public knows instinctively that it would be better if both parents are present in a child"s life. Once concealed research shows that a child who is brought up in a homosexual home may be more likely to engage in homosexuality. But is it loving to expose children to the predominantly damaging lifestyle of homosexuality? If homosexuality can be learned, what does that say about the argument that people are born that way?
Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal In ALL States

That does not matter. Marriage, under the status quo is defined as, a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other. b. A similar union of more than two people; a polygamous marriage. [1]So if we play the game of semantics, we can see that the curent definition is something that is opposing what my opponent is saying. Also, keep in mind that marriage, under my counterplan, would be privitized, so if people wanted to marry their pet rock then so be it. Though in all seriousness I extend across my arguments. A study by Australia by University of Melbourn found that comparing heterosexual and homosexual families, they found that homosexual couples are better than heterosexual parents as not only are their families happier, but their children have a better childhood. [2] As for reproduction, lesbian couples can already reproduce and we are on the verge of technology by 2020 for gay couples to reproduce. [3][4]I extend across all arguments. Sources1. (https://illinois.edu...) 2. (http://www.abc.net.au...) 3. (http://www.csmonitor.com...) 4. (http://time.com...)