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

Hello, vi_spex. Thanks for accepting! However, let's remember that Round 1 is fo acceptance, so I'm not going to address the argument made there until a bit later. I'm just going to jump in, demonsrating a few proofs that the mathematical value of .999... is equivalent to the mathematical value of 1.A Proof by Geometric SeriesThis proof is actually utililzed in the link that someone posted in the comments. First, we expand .999... as .9 + .09 + .009 + ...We notice that an equivalent way to show this expansion is:9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + ....which is:9/10 + 9/10 * (1/10) + 9/10 * (1/10)^2 + ....This is now clearly recognizable as a geometric series, with the first term a = 9/10 and the common ration, r = 1/10. Since the absolute value of r is less than one, we can use a special formula to calculate the sum of the entire infinite series:Sum = a * [ 1 / (1-r) ]Plugging in, we see:.999... = (9/10) * [ 1 / (9/10) ] = (9/10) * (10/9) = 1 A More Common ProofThis proof is perhaps one of the most utilized proofs in demonstrating that .999... is equivalent to 1. Let x = .999...We can multiply each side by 10, which effectively moves the decimal place in .999...:10x = 9.999...Now we can subtract 1x from both sides:10x - x = 9.999... - .999... = 9x = 9By simply dividing both sides by nine, we see that:9/9x = 9/9 =x = 1There are quite a few more proofs on this issue, but I will reserve those for later, based upon what my opponent has to offer. I'd like to remind my opponent that this is a mathematical issue, so he would be wise to approach it in a way that is mathematically sound and utterly devoid of metaphors.
.999... is equivalent to 1

I don't think troll debates are fundementally bad. They can often produce some great comedy. However, I made it clear in Round 1 that trolling was a direct violation of the rules. I should be awarded the full 7 points for this debate because of this rule violation. However, in the off scenario that my opponent isn't trolling and that he is simply being. .. him. .. I will address what he has said. My opponent has claimed he has the ability to expand a unicorn, by which he means change it. However, he has not sufficiently proven the existence of unicorns, thus leading us to believe that vi_spex cannot change what does not exist. Additionally, he stated that he could not pick the unicorn up from the floor. This is entirely opinionated, as the opponent has likely never seen a unicorn. For all he knows, if a unicorn exists, it may be very light. In fact, the unicorn might only be slightly heavier than air; so light that even a mouse could pick it up off the floor. There is no way of knowing without adequate proof. Also, the opponent's comment is irrelevant to the debate. I have demonstrated that .999. .. is equivalent to 1. These arguments were not contended. I have also heard that winning a debate against vi_spex actually lowers your ELO. I imagine that this is poetic justice, as I mentioned in the comments that I created this debate because I thought it would be an easy win. I didn't even consider the fact that a win could actually hurt my rankings. If that was your intent in debating me vi, well done. Point made. I'll have to create a minimum ELO for acceptance with my next debates.
.999... is equivalent to 1

Oh boy. To start, the opponent did not attempt to refute my arguments and merely addresses one of them with an ill-formed metaphor. To answer my opponents question, "what are you expanding, how do you expand a stone?":I am expanding a mathematical expression. I did not claim to expand a stone, nor do I wish to learn how to expand a stone. As for his claims about destruction, those aren't relevent here. Vi_Spex, I specifically said there was to be no trolling. Please use the next round to produce more serious arguments.
Science does not disprove intelligent design

I look forward to a productive and fruitful exchange of debate and opinion. I will start off by defining the word, "disprove. " According to dictionary. com disprove is defined as "to prove (an assertion, claim, etc. ) to be false or wrong; refute; invalidate: I disproved his claim. " In order to use science to disprove the theory of intelligent design, this assertion must be completely shown as false and not valid. My opponent has stated that it is "dismissed as a hypothesis. " Much like the theory of evolution, intelligent design is one that has not been disproven nor proven. Theory is an important word. Theory is defined as, "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. " Therefore, theory is not something that is shown as fact nor it is shown as something that is not true at all. We must look at intelligent design as the claim that there is a supreme creator that has made everything around us - the universe, stars, the earth, life, and us as human beings. I believe that no human discovered and asserted scientific claim can ever disprove the existence of an intelligent creator due to the fact that it is automatically assumed that evolution, relativity, gravity, and many other scientific propositions were used in the process of the creation of the living universe. If these are facts, it serves no basis to show that there is no god whether it be Allah, Jesus, Zeus, Apollo, Yahweh, etc. There are many interpretations of each religion that serve as a guide to show that science was incorporated by an intelligent creator and should not be dismissed as blasphemy. Creation and science have been shown to be compatible together. I will use the argument that everything has a beginning. It is quite over-used but still valid and perfectly acceptable. If I were to take the origins of the universe and trace it down to the very beginning planet by planet, star by star, explosion by explosion, process by process, we'd eventually reach a point where it all started. And what was before it when it started. Nothing? What is nothing? You cannot define nothing. A creator of some sort had to have started it all. Where he/she/it came from is a mystery and will never be figured out, however no amount of science can show that this has not happened based on the assumption that it was incorporated into the creationary cycle. I wait eagerly for my opponent's response.
The God Hypothesis is a valid Scientific theory

I am arguing that the God Hypothesis is a supported scientific theory. The burden of proof is not all on me though I expect CON to debate and argue under this context. This means unless my opponent can back it up with scientific evidence, NO philosophical arguments or claims. my opponent will also have to try and show how my hypothesis fails to better explain the data compared to the Null hypothesis and how it does not reach the essential criteria of being a theory: Essential criteria "The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. .. .. .. A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria: 1. It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics). 2. It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct. 3. It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before. )"[1] The "God Hypothesis" is there exists a personal God who is the creator of the universe and who is interested in human affairs. A "scientific explanation" therefore makes an unknown phenomenon comprehensible by relating it to known scientific facts and established theories. Moreover, since my approach is scientific in nature, It needs to be five rounds for me to have enough ground to work under, and so I can adequately respond and address my opponents objections. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
A $15 minimum wage would destroy America's economy forever.

D1: ... My case requires no defense, as all my lines of reasoning have been dropped by pro. R1: Plagiarism Sections of pro's arguments are stolen from the people who worked hard for them (isn't that what socialists are supposed to do?). This was easily spotted due to broken formatting, about like someone trying to sell property they could have never afforded. "Norway, Sweden and Denmark, who consistently top the lists of happiest places to live, don't have a standard minimum" [4] "When you raise the cost of something, you get less of it" [5]. Given that pro is complaining of Bernie Sanders, I would assume he would not commit the behavior claimed in the normal Straw Man [6] committed against the presidential hopeful. I do give credit for irony, given that Bernie's main challenger steals his arguments, then claims (even when they are directly against her) that she had always said that [7]. R2: Mexican Labor Were pro's case true, that "Mexico is already killing us when it comes to economy lately," Mexicans would stay at home, rather than coming here for a better life. As is, they account for 28% of our immigrant population [8]. R3: "Machine Takeover" This fear of futurity is common, but senseless. Cars put many horses out of work, and the economy adapted. It reminds me of the popular meme: Note that McDonalds is still functioning within the changed economy, in fact the machines in question already exist [9], and society has not crumbled. R4: Small Businesses In response to "small businesses can't handle it"; small businesses are not the entire economy. Just look at the previous point, large businesses adapt. Looking at my previous round, it's been proven by experts hyping a worst case scenario that only a fraction (10-15%) of small businesses can't handle it. R5: Doomsday Scenario "An even worse scenario would be if the company decides to move all jobs located in America to a place where they can actually afford to employ people to do work." This is a powerful statement, but one not based on reality. Everywhere that has people living, has jobs. Germany suffered hyperinflation, and WWII still happened instead of everyone simply leaving the country; and Germany is doing great today. Greece whose economy is in shambles, is not only not empty, but a popular destination for Turkish refugees [10]. Sources: [4] Worldcrunch.com http://www.worldcrunch.com... [5] House Speaker John A. Boehner https://www.washingtonpost.com... [6] Straw Man definition https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [7] Pro emulating Hillary Clinton http://observer.com... [8] Mexican immigrants http://www.migrationpolicy.org... [9] McDonalds self-service kiosks http://www.businessinsider.com... [10] Refugees in poor countries http://www.theguardian.com...
A $15 minimum wage would destroy America's economy forever.

I am limited by the rules, to not address pro's case until next round; however to avoid committing a Final Round Blitzkrieg [1], I advise pro to prepare a defense against plagiarism allegations. On to my case... Definitions from Merriam-Webster Economy is "the process or system by which goods and services are produced, sold, and bought in a country or region." Destroy is "to cause (something) to end or no longer exist." Forever is "for an endless time." C1: Inflation and Minimum Wage Inflation is a reality to which we live with. If minimum wage did not go up, we'd have a $1.60 minimum wage left over from 1968 [3]. The minimum wage effectively pays people less than that when the passage of time is factored in, but it is guaranteed to surpass $15 at some point in the future, because there's how our economy works. C2: Maximum Damage Serial CEO Ed Rensi of McDonalds, Famous Dave's and others, is opposed to raising the minimum wage. According to Investopedia, he is summarized as stating "a higher minimum wage would not only kill existing jobs but also result in closing a substantial number of small businesses, from 15-20%" [2]. Please note these numbers, which are 80-85% below even short term destruction of the economy, and for only one business size category. C3: Forever is a Long Time Even if hypothetically a $15 minimum wage crashed the economy, the economy would not be destroyed, and it's just suffer for a while. The U.S. has weathered recessions before, and will do so again. Unless the minimum wage killed us all, or ushered in a utopian era free from the need for money, there is no conceivable way it "would destroy America's economy forever." Sources: [1] Conduct pet peeve: https://docs.google.com... [2] Ed Rensi and $15 minimum wage: http://www.investopedia.com... [3] Various wage graphs: http://economicrt.org...
A $15 minimum wage would destroy America's economy forever.

Thanks for accepting! Here are a few key points I will be putting out: Mexico is already killing us when it comes to economy lately, due to labor cost. Norway, Sweden and Denmark, who consistently top the lists of happiest places to live, don"t have a standard minimum. When you raise the cost of something, you get less of it Job level will get crushed and machines will take over Small businesses can't handle it. To the ear, it sounds perfect. Everyone gets more money, and therefore poverty is gone! Everyone is happy! But it only takes a little bit of thinking to notice that somebody has to pay off these raised salaries, and if they can't do such a dramatic increase, the employers will be forced to fire people, and replace them. These people will therefore become jobless, which impacts our economy and the lives of the people. An even worse scenario would be if the company decides to move all jobs located in America to a place where they can actually afford to employ people to do work. America will crash, and not be able to ever return from such a big blow to the American labor force. The United States have lost five million manufacturing jobs since 2000 (Money.CNN.com) Mexico is one of the key components of this job takeaway, as the cost of labor in the US is constantly rising, the cost for labor in Mexico is quickly dropping, so many American CEO's have decided to leave the Americans unemployed and hiring Mexicans for less money, which generates more profit. Also, small businesses won't even be able to relocate or make machines, they will just quickly crash and "bern". Small businesses throughout the nation, hardworking people, will be force to forget their dreams and close their doors.
None of the three most practicted religions' Gods exist.

I'm not going to be as short as you, but I hope you still read my points. 1.)[[[[Beyond a shadow of a doubt would be to difficult.]]]] That's incorrect, it is impossible to prove God does not exist. 2.)[[[[We can't even prove scientifically humans exist beyond a doubt. Instead, I have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.]]]] I've heard statements like that before, and some similar ones (such as that we can't prove we weren't just created only last Thursday, a theory called Last Thursdayism [1]). That's alright, it reinforces my proposal that proving God's existence, as of right now, is impossible. The problem is that you have not even RESONABLY proven God does not exist. When you tried, I countered it extremely well in Round 2 (at least in my opinion, we'll leave it to the voters, though). However, you completely ignored by whole Round 2 rebuttal, and only disputed by Round 1 arguments. Therefore, I'm asking you to reread my Round 2 debate and counter it in the comments. If not, that's understandable. But my Round 2 is where you can find the logic that dismantles your reasonable proof of "No affirmative proof of God means beyond a reasonable doubt we conclude that God doesn't exist." 3.)[[[[You haven't really dented my case, so I'm going to make this round short.]]]] I feel that I have, and that's the reason you made your Round 4 short: you can't refute what I have said (but if you can, feel free to in the comments). But again, we'll leave it up to the voters to see who is dented. 4.)[[[[Thanks for the debate, good job debating. Welcome to debate.org.]]]] Bye for now. I'll send a friend request, you were an enjoyable and worthy adversary. You also did well, this was no walk in the park for me at all. See ya.
None of the three most practicted religions' Gods exist.

"I like your arguement, but you need to include that evidence without a doubt. " JimshadyNo I don't, beyond a shadow of a doubt would be too difficult. We can't even prove scientifically humans exist beyond a doubt. Instead, I have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You haven't really dented my case, so I'm going to make this round short. Thanks for the debate, good job debating. Welcome to debate.org.
None of the three most practicted religions' Gods exist.

R2 ArgumentsClaim 0: There is no evidence that God exists, therefore scientifically God doesn't exist. Warrant 0: "Now, the atheist will counter my affirmative proof argument by crying, "Well, OK, but there isn't any affirmative proof of God." Fine, even if we grant that assertion (which some will dispute), then the proper scientific stance should still be one of uncertain agnosticism--not definitive atheism."[0]Impact 0: No affirmative proof of God means beyond a reasonable doubt we conclude that God doesn't exist. This is because science is involved in so many fields of study. From biology, evolution, psychology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and many more. Many of these fields have alternative explanations for previously scientifically unexplained events.Thanks for the debate. Look forward to what you have to say next. Sources0. https://www.psychologytoday.com...
None of the three most practicted religions' Gods exist.

I will contend that none of the three most practiced religions Gods exist. The three are Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. My opponent will contend that one or more of these religions' Gods exist. Victory for Pro if can Pro can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that none of these Gods exist. Automatic victory for Con if Pro doesn't win. Can be no stalemate. Structure R1 acceptance R2 Arguments R3 rebuttals r4 defense of r2 arguments against opponent's r3 rebuttals.
WAR DEBATE: United States (Pro) vs. Selected Country (Con) PART TWO

Oh... That map. Aftermath of U.S move ======================== 1. Position Russian troops has fallen back to Maine (However, they are still in America), American troops are at the south border of Maine and are bombing Russian troops. My navy is still working and are assisting the ground forces. 2. Casualties Bombing and constant fighting have had some casualties on the ground force. However, American troops have also been taking casualties. I'm going to list out the amount of troops on both side Russian Army: 400,000 American Army: 600,000 Russian AFVs: 5,000 American AFVs: 3,000 Russian Navy: 250 American Navy: 0 Russian Aircraft: 0 American Aircraft: 2,000 These are estimates and assumptions, so they aren't exactly accurate. 3. Morale Russia: Relentless bombing and constant losses has lowered some morale of the ground force America: Gaining ground and winning fights has raised American morale. However, since they are bombing, they have killed civilians and have destroyed their own civilian buildings (since we didn't bomb the NE), thus lowering their morale as well. And with that out if the way, I will commence my turn ============= Actions ============= My troops has fallen back to Maine, however they are still there. My navy that has not been touched will play a key factor in my next move. I will send a navy of 100 with 1,000,000 troops, 2,500 aircraft, and 10,000 AFVs to the east coast. Meanwhile, the navy of 250 already at America will bombard the enemy relentlessly, taking down their numbers. The Russian troops will hold their positions for now. My navy arrives and deploys their troops on the borderline between the South and the NE. We will use the Anti-Air on the navy and the aircraft that we have to take out the American aircraft. Then we will execute my plan. The army at Maine will go on the offensive, at the same time the reinforcing army will attack them from behind. The reinforcing army has overwhelming numbers by itself, however, the army at Maine are also attacking. This forces the American troops to split to fight on two fronts. Otherwise they will be killed at their flank. They can't escape since we corner them, so we completely obliterate them. We take some casualties, however, the two armies merge after obliterating the American army. The numbers will be 1,300,000 troops, 8,000 AFVs, and 1,250 aircraft. America has left the Midwest basically un-defended as they only have 80,880 troops, we easily take the Midwest, with small casualties. Military Expansion =============== About 23,000 troops have been made, I have added them to my army in Russia. Your turn, America.
WAR DEBATE: United States (Pro) vs. Selected Country (Con) PART TWO

My capital is not in the Northeast. It is in the South, as you can see from the map, Washington DC is on the border of Maryland and Virginia. No morale will be lost. Defense of the NortheastMy opponent has advanced all the way to Pennsylvania, because of one thing, I have told my forces in the Northeast to fall back and wait for reinforcements from the Midwest and South. So, my opponent has taken casualties, and so have I. I will have about 400,000 troops, 4,000 AFVs, and 2,000 aircraft. But, he has no aircraft left. It will take about a month to get all the troops together, but I have gotten reinforcements from:West: 100,000 troops and 2,000 AFVsMidwest: 200,000 troops, 1,000 AFVs and 500 aircraftSouth: 100,000 troops, 1,000 AFVs, and 1,000 aircraftThis brings my total up to 800,000 troops, 8,000 AFVs, and 3,500 aircraft. This will be a very one sided battle now, in favor of the USA. While my opponent gets cosy in Northern Pennsylvania, we will bomb them relentlessly, and they cannot do anything about it considering they have no aircraft. Our army of 800,000 will move in, and the bombing will stop, for now. The Russians will most likely fall back, and our aircraft will follow them, bombing and shooting at them while our army pushes them back. (http://www.debate.org...) After 2 months, which will end my turn, they should be all the way to the Maine area now. My army has minimal casualties due to the fact the Russians are being bombed and falling back.It has been 3 months total, the end of my turn, which means I have produced 33,000 troops. 11,000 will go to the Midwest, South, and West.Over to you, Russia.
WAR DEBATE: United States (Pro) vs. Selected Country (Con) PART TWO

Initial Invasion =================== Since I outnumber the U.S in troops and in AFVs, I will be using it to my advantage. I will be sending a navy of 250 over to the east cost. Due to the distance between Russia and the destination of my choosing, I will be generous, and say it takes 2 months. The navy will be carrying 1,500,000 troops, 15,000 AFVs, and 500 aircraft. The numbers easily overwhelm the east cost defense.cAfter some bombing in a wide area, I will send my troops at the bombed area (area is medium sized). Then, I will send the troops toward the NE. Our overwhelming numbers will overpower the numbers in the NE. I will take some casualties, and since this is home territory for the U.S I will be taking 700,000 army casualties and 7,000 AFVs. This brings the numbers down to 800,000 troops and 8,000 AFVs. We take the capital since we attack the NE, therefore lowering your troops morale. We will be using the civilian buildings (since we didn't bomb the NE) to our advantage and set up fortifications for the impending attack. The navy will be assisting my army on land by staying close to the NE. Since the rest of the U.S' army is on the other side, he can't attack my navy for a while. Military Expansion ==================== Using my opponent's source, I will be expanding my army. I will be spending 3 billion per month to recruit, this gives me about 3,529 troops per month. Your turn, U.S