BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
0.999999 equals to 1

Errr. .my opponent has forfeited as mentioned in the comment section, so I guess there's really no need for me to counter the above. Here are some simple proofs though, in case you aren't entirely convinced (Google can help). 1/3 = 0.33333333 repeating. 3/3 = 1, but 0.333333 repeating x 3 = 0.9999999. This is where your calculator even agrees. Type in 0.99999999 with at least 20 9's (if you calculator can store that many digits) and press Enter (Equal). It'll equate to 1. Also, many other higher-leveled mathematics have complex ways of proving this, so I'll just paste Wikipedia. Semantics is really the only argument here, albeit hitherto we are dealing with mathematical reasoning only. . http://en.wikipedia.org...... "In other words, the notations 0.999… and 1 represent the same number. Proofs of this equality have been formulated with varying degrees of mathematical rigour, taking into account preferred development of the real numbers, background assumptions, historical context, and target audience. " "The equality 0.999…=1 has long been accepted by mathematicians and taught in textbooks. In the last few decades, researchers of mathematics education have studied the reception of this equality among students. Some reject it due to their intuitions that each number has a unique decimal expansion, that nonzero infinitesimal numbers should exist, or that the expansion of 0.999… eventually terminates. These intuitions fail in the real numbers, but alternate number systems can be constructed bearing some of them out. Indeed, some settings contain numbers that are "just shy" of 1; these are generally unrelated to 0.999…, but they are of considerable interest in mathematical analysis. "
0.999999 equals to 1

I would like to start by thanking my opponent. This is my first debate and I am excited to improve my skills. Now... My opponent states that 0.9 repeating is equal to one however this is impossible, due to the fact that no matter how long the 9's may continue on for, they still do not equal one. Let me define equal, because my opponent has failed to do so. equal: as great as; the same as http://dictionary.reference.com... it is impossible for something even a fraction of a decimal in DIFFERENCE from one to be equal to it. No matter how long the decimal nines continue, the 1 wll still be a very small amount larger. Regardless of whether that amount would matter to anything there is still a difference. They are separate by an infinitely small number. There is a difference. Once again, thank you for the debate. I look forward to your counter
All illegal immigrants should be deported

While I agree with all my opponent said regarding the deportation of migrants convicted of crimes (i.e.: non-immigration-related crimes such as drug dealing, pimping or gang violence), I question his other beliefs. Indeed, migrants, legal or illegal are good for the economy. They take the "3D" jobs (Dirty, Dangerous, Dull) which no American citizen would want to take. Therefore, they help remedy the crippling labor shortages in certain sectors of the economy. Moreover, illegal immigrants provide cheap labor. If we were to deport them, consumer prices would rise and counteract any possible individual benefits coming from a slight drop in unemployment. In short, even though migrants may create many social problems, they are good for our economy and should not be deported unless they commit a serious crime.
All illegal immigrants should be deported

The reasons why all illegal immigrants should be deported because once they step onto U.S. soil they are already committing a crime. They are illegal, the definition of illegal is contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law. Those illegal immigrants who come here without proper documentation, those who are non-illegal and overstayed their visa and those who live in the U.S. and commit crimes are all illegal, they are committing a crime and they all should be deported, there are no questions about it. Just like American citizens we have to follow the law, those wanting to live in America, should conform to our culture and want to be Americans. We feel as if these people should follow the law just as you would do in any other countries.
Resolved: The Death Penalty in the U.S. should be prohibited

This is for Round Two of Weirdman's Winter Tournament. First round for rules/definitions and acceptance. Rules:1. There are no restrictions on argumentative strategy.2. Burden of proof is shared.3. This debate concerns the resolution:RESOLVED: The Death Penalty in the U. S. should be prohibited.4. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.5. R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Rules and Definitions in R1 are binding. Substantively violating the R1 agreements will result in loss of both argument and conduct.6. Spelling/Grammer and Conduct will NOT be voted on unless: a) explicitly argued for in the debate round AND b) voting occurs on the grounds argued for in the debate.7. Sources must be posted or linked in the debate round. Voting on Sources should be reserved for extreme discrepancy in quality of sources. Definitions:Death Penalty- sentencing of death as punishment for a crime, as currently implemented by the U. S. legal system. prohibited- formally forbid by law.
Religion was created by Man

What makes God the creator though? How do we know that life and nature is in fact created by some deity. And I say "some deity" because there are many different kinds of deities. Of course you cannot creat an apple or life itself, but we can advance it faster than God. We can even end it just as quickly with an abortion. I believe we create the idea of religion. Religion does not solve anything. It creates an ideaology that tries to impede on human rights. If only God can create, than Thomas Edison and the Writ brothers and other famous inventors wouldn't be known today. Yes they made something that already existed. But at the times it was created, people believed such a thing was God-like. Examples include electricity, and the algorithm that keeps the planets revolving around the sun without veering off path. Science can solve an idea believed to be at the hands of a God, using only human intelligence. The limitations of human intelligence is in fact relative.
Religion was created by Man

Throughout our existence, we have always looked up to the skies believing in a God or many Gods. But not one faith is wrong according to those who believe in it. So was each religion created by Man, seeing that some will kill just because people don't believe in their religion? Every religion can't be right, since some take on different view points as to how we came about, and what the deity(s) may look like. For this debate, you can not classify science as a religion, for the definition of religion is a belief focused around a deity. I am not an atheist, just an agnostic. I am curious to see how this goes. The argument of some thing not being able to be disproven and is therefor up for discussion is invalid, since you can say that about pretty much any fantasy.
Religion was created by Man

no i said god is defined as a creator, god can not create life becasue anything that is created is a machine, and nature is life a mushroom is not a shoe a rock is not, not a rock, it is a rock, the rock is absolute out there=false now make the matter that is an apple nothing, i dare you. trying to destroy an apple into smaller and smaller pieces in various advanced ways to tiny bits of apple spread out in the sea to destroy it, or make it nothing, has no bearing, so not even doing anything to the apple is the same as trying to, in order to destroy it i know matter is eternal becasue a first cause is impossible, as it would be caused by a cause that is not a cause. any cause is caused by another cause, as a cause that didnt cause anything isnt a cause. cause and effect has no beginning and end
Religion was created by Man

You say God is defined as a creator of life, but you leave out the part that WE as society coined that definition. So who are we to say what a God does or does not do. It is physically impossible for something imaginary to create something physical. The universe itself may be imaginary, but remember that the idea of it is based on physical evidence. No one knows what the universe is comprised of, but one thing is certain; there is more out there in the outer limits Than us and our solar system. It would be naive to think otherwise. The idea of life being eternal and that nothing can be created nor destroyed are all abstract ideas...not concrete evidence. You are trying to say that a creator exists based solely on the ideas that disprove God. If life and nature are eternal, which you said meant no beginning and no end, than the idea of something having no beginning must not have a creator. Again I will say your equal sign analogies are not putting forward enough evidence to back your argument.
Religion was created by Man

a universe is an imaginary idea.. in order for it to expand it must have beginning, but matter can at best transform, creation and destructon are impossible inr reality. matter is eternal, no beginning and no end, only now. life being nature, there is no, before life if god is not a creator, its not a god. god is defined as creator if god is not physical right now, or in my memories, i can at best imagine god. i am not a unicorn but you can believe in me i can see, future past and now, future being false.. bible=buy bull christ=see returning rise form for the love of christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therfore all died, as they beleive in the bs..
Religion was created by Man

The Big Bang Theory was disproven a few months ago by astrophysists, which also debunked the idea that the universe even had a beginning. Our universe is expanding at rates that are not constant and is there fore hard to measure. Astrophysists have concluded that the universe may have very well always existed because the estimated age of the universe cannot be determined. This may mean there was never a beginning to the universe and life, meaning there was never a creator or the idea of creation itself. Your...equal sign sayings don't necessarily agree with each other. Your "creation=God" saying is the exact argument I am trying to make. How do we know that God=creation/creator? God is not necessarily imaginative since people believe to have seen him or signs of his presence. Man can't even fully explain the idea of God. God is portrayed as the all knowing, all seeing deity. When something good happens, God is given credit by a Christian. When something bad happens, that same Christian will say "God works in mysterious ways." Obviously that person cannot simply explain God's "reasoning" behind such an event or act. So it is safe to assume that we ourselves can't explain religion or its intentions. This makes me think we created an idea that we simply cannot explain.
Which Significant Power was the most ill-prepared for conflict at the start of WWII

Greetings to my opponent. Good luck and have fun. : ) World War II ignited spontaneously. A very short arms race was engaged in slightly before Poland was invaded, but the only nations actually ready for a conflict of scale were Germany, Italy and Japan. Even the mighty Imperial Great Britain was caught off guard and with a poorly equipped Air Force, slightly obsolescant technology on its Naval Fleet and an expeditionaty force that likely wasn't ready for such a conflict (such as the latest asdic on its battleships). (This said, if the French had been able to stand, the English Expeditionary Army, almost 200,000 strong) was strong enough to halt the German Blitzkireg in its tracks, if circumstances had been slightly different...) However, unlike the mighty UK, France, Netherlands, China, Poland, Norway, Denmark, USA, USSR and Canada were all caught entirely off guard and with little power of significance, initially. It is my goal to prove that among them and of the most significant powers caught ill prepared, Canada should take the slot. Canada, throughout the war, fought in various compaigns, including even establishing its own Beachhead at D-Day, campaigning through Normandy and the Scheldt, Holland, Belgium, Italy, escorting and providing the entire brunt of anti U-boat war in the Atlantic for many years and aiding and supplementing fighting in the Pacific and in the bombing campaigns. It may be of great dismay that even though Canada fought so bravely, it spent its first years mobilising, such was its disrepair. I will prove that the Royal Canadian Navy was the weakest of any power whom fought that significantly, its Army was almost nonexistent, its Air Force was despiccably kept and its technology palled, as it advanced behind that of Great Britain and the US throughout much of the war. Also, Mackenzie and the Government added their own political turmoil to an already disappointing situation. Cheers!
The 2014 Minnesota Vikings in the playoffs?!

In order to defend my stance I will dispel some of the points you have made in your previous argument. 1. "First of all, they lost Jared Allen during the offseason. That is going to have a major impact on them considering Allen's stats in recent years" 1a. When you mean recent years do you mean his 2011 NFL regular season? Jared Allen of course was a good player in the years 2012 and 2013, but his declining production in those years can be replaced with a few people. The first of which is Everson Griffen whom just got resigned to a big deal to remain in Minnesota. It is logical to believe that Everson with his youth, athleticism, and the coaching of Mike Zimmer can elevate his play to that of starter level. Remember Everson has been impressive in spot duty so far producing 8 sacks in rotation in the 2012 season (with 3 of those sacks coming in the final game to seal a wildcard birth against the Green Bay Packers.) Ironically enough, the last person to help eliminate the void of Jared's numbers isn't a player, but a coach, Mike Zimmer. Mike Zimmer's scheme is known for being able to pressure the quarterback efficiently across the board. It is also common knowledge that Zimmer's schemes don't focus on a few superstar players, but focus on the defense to play as a unit, as a team. So the team will replace Allen's missing productivity. 2. "You basically said that it's just Aaron Rodgers responsible for their success" 2a. Yeah, you pretty much summed up what I was saying, and how is that not true? We got a sample of the Packers without Rodgers last year. Lets, just say they weren't exactly blowing by teams as they used to. Heck, they could only manage to tie us the Vikings in Week 12 of the 2013 NFL regular season (our defense was the worst in franchise history.) I think that alone would prove that the Packers without Rodgers are a completely different team. Sam Shields will man down one corner spot efficiently, but what of the other? Clay Matthews is brilliant, I bet the Packers wish they had 10 more of him on the field at the same time. If we are going by the fact that he is a rookie, Haha Clinton-Dix shouldn't be able to shore up the entire Packer's backfield. Julius is similar to Allen, he may have the ability to preform, but the odds of him preforming enough to help a defense be "incredible" is very doubtful. Look how incredible he made to 2013 Bears defense (161.4 yards rushing/game.) 3. Your points on the Lions 3a. The deal with the Lions is that their talent is always enough to win, but have historically always underachieved. 4. "The Bears defense will be dominant as always" 4a. Was it dominance I was witnessing last year?! (2013) 30th ranked overall defense in the NFL, and 31st ranked rushing defense?! Lets hope it is that dominant this year. So hopefully that proves that the teams in the division are manageable for the Vikings. Not all rookie QB's are prone to mistakes (RG3 in 2012 for proof) What about our coaches and young talent?
The 2014 Minnesota Vikings in the playoffs?!

I do not believe that the Minnesota Vikings have a decent chance of making the playoffs in 2014. First of all, they lost Jared Allen during the offseason. That is going to have a major impact on them considering Allen's stats in recent years.(http://www.nfl.com...) Also, you said that the Green Bay Packers do not have enough talent on the whole team, and you basically said that it's just Aaron Rodgers responsible for their success. The Packer's defense will be incredible next year if everyone stays healthy. They have Sam Shields coming off an excellent year at corner, they have Clay Matthews as brilliant as usual, they drafted Alabama Crimson Tide star Haha Clinton-Dix at safety, and they acquired former Bears star Julius Peppers on the offense. As for their offense, Eddie Lacy will have a monster year. He was rookie of the year last year with great stats, especially for a modern day running back in a division with great defenses (http://m.espn.go.com...) Also, their receiving group remains in tact with Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb still there. As for the Detroit Lions, the main thing is Calvin Johnson. He broke Jerry Rice's single season receiving yards record in 2012 and had a game this year where he almost set a record for the most receiving yards in one game. In addition to him, the Lions defense is just punishing. They have Ndomakong Suh, Nick Fairly, and Ziggy Ansah on the D line. They're gonna be tough to beat, especially with head coach Jim Caldwell in the division. Moving on to the Chicago Bears. The only disadvantage for this team in this division is Jay Cutler. He's kind of a crybaby and he gets hurt a lot. He has to stay healthy this season for Chicago to have success. The Bears defense will be dominant as always. They have Tim Jennings and Charles Tillman of course. Also, they drafted Kyle Fuller out of Virginia Tech and scored J. Ratliff in free agency. The Vikings two biggest disadvantages this year are the teams in their division and Teddy Bridgewater. Bridgewater may have been a top prospect, but he's still a rookie. The thing about rookie QB's is they're scared and they make too many mistakes. The Vikes may make the playoffs within the next two or three years, but it's very unlikely this year .
The 2014 Minnesota Vikings in the playoffs?!

The 2014 Minnesota Vikings have a good chance of making it back to the playoffs this year. There are multiple reasons why this stance is accurate 1. The competition in the NFC North has weakened in comparison to previous years, I will address the reasoning for each teams decline here: 1a. Green Bay Packers: The Packers are a team that is buoyed by spectacular quarterback play. But when one looks past Aaron Rodgers most of the team lacks sizzle, that is primarily said for the defense which simply doesn't have the ability or talent to stop many offenses efficiently. The Packers will do good with Rodgers at the helm, but Football is a team game, and the Packers simply do NOT have as complete a team as other teams in the NFL. 2a. Chicago Bears: The Bears are in a similar position as the Packers, the Bears rely on a dominant offense to carry their entire team. If one were to look past the offense they would see a defense that is in need of plenty of work, work I don't believe the Bears have accomplished. 3a. Detroit Lions: The Detroit Lions are a team with plenty of talent, the Lions just aren't a team that can use it's talent to win enough Football games. If the Lions could actually get it's talent to win games I would seriously consider them as NFC North favorites. Yet, I don't expect their coach Jim Caldwell to get the most out of the entire Lions team. 2. The Vikings coaches are of a greater quality than years past: The addition of Mike Zimmer was a brilliant addition in the minds of many people in the industry of Football. Mike Zimmer is a noted defensive guru who has helped turn around the defenses of every team he has been with very quickly (and just remember defense was the Vikings greatest problem last year.) Plus Zimmer is a respected coach by many in the league and should garner the respect of every Viking on the team Norv Turner was an fantastic hire as well, he is also a proven coach in this league who has worked with Hall of Famers such as Emmitt Smith and Troy Aikman (plus the future Hall of Famer Ladainian Tomlinson) Norv Turner should in theory raise the Viking's offense up another level. 3. The Vikings has massive amounts of talent 3a. The Vikings in the past 3 drafts has gathered 7 first rounders. Every one of these players (Matt Kalil, Harrison Smith, Shariff Floyd, Xavier Rhodes, Corrdarrelle Patterson, Anthony Barr, and Teddy Bridgewater) have the ability to improve tremendously because of the presence of Mike Zimmer, Norv Turner, and others. 3b. Pro Football Weekly has shown through its numbers that the Vikings have a very balanced team throughout. 3c. *cough* Adrian Peterson *cough* So in conclusion the Vikings have a good chance of making the playoffs because of a division that may not be as tough as years past (it will still be tough though), a better coaching staff than years past, and a wealth of talent on both sides of the ball. The Vikings are a balanced football team, and those teams often win.
The 2014 Minnesota Vikings in the playoffs?!

All of those QBs that you listed (Cam Newton, Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan, Andrew Luck, and Russell Wilson) except for Russell Wilson were expected to be great and perform at a high level. Why? Because they were drafted extremely high. RG3 was drafted #2 in 2012, Cam Newton was drafted #1 in 2011, Peyton Manning was drafted #1 in 1998, Matt Ryan was drafted #3 in 2008, and Andrew Luck was drafted #1 in 2012. Russell Wilson was drafted #75 in 2012. All of these highly drafted guys were expected to be great. More often, it's the highly drafted guy that wins you games and wins awards. I'm not saying that a third rounder like Russell Wilson can't potentially win the Super Bowl, but it doesn't happen as often as highly drafted players. Yes, Teddy Bridgewater's stock fell because of his bad pro day. Do you know why the NFL does pro days? It's to see who can play and who can handle pressure. Andrew Luck and RG3 had very good pro days. Can they handle pressure? Well let's see. They have both closely brought their teams to playoff appearances, and they have both felt and handled the pressure of the NFL postseason. So, Bridgewater has not yet shown that he can handle pressure and still do a good job. And by the way, I didn't say that ALL rookie QBs have huge issues of fear and mistake making. I didn't use the word all, so don't take advantage of something I said if I didn't say it. About defensive style coaches, here are some who 's QBs have taken a lot of sacks over the course of the year: John Harbaugh/Joe Flacco-took 48 sacks in 2013 Rex Ryan/Geno Smith-took 43 sacks in 2013 Mike Tomin/ Ben Roethlisberger(yes)- took 42 sacks in 2013 And of course I would rather have Aaron Rodgers, but the quarterback isn't the only important position on the field. This league wouldn't be "QB driven" without playmakers that the Packers didn't have, such as Jermichael Finley and Jordy Nelson. I am about to adress the other subjects that you pointed out. Norv Turner had one good season in San Diego, it was 2009. They didn't even win the playoff game they played in (they lost to Mark Sanchez's Jets). The rest of his seasons in San Diego were 9-7, 8-8, and 7-9 seasons. As for the Viking's other first round pick Anthony Barr, he's questionable. While watching the draft, I thought C. J. Mosley would've been the much smarter pick (as he had won championships at Alabama and really was a better player). Adrian Peterson is great, and I have nothing but respect for the guy. The only thing with him, is that he must get the spotlight early. What I mean is, with a rookie QB coming in, too much focus may be on teaching him the offense. AP is the much better player, so Mike Zimmer must be smart enough to have a running type offense. I think we both have debated well enough to convince voters to vote for us. I wish you good luck in the voting process.