BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
.9999999 bar does not = 1

Refutation1. ) "when x was multiplied by 10, ".999. .. " became 9.9999. .. . what is left out is the fact that there is now one less 9 at the end. "Another example to demonstrate the concept used in this argument. x = 0.888. ..10x = 8.888. .. |8.888. .. - 0.888. .. = 8|9x = 8Despite that there was one fewer decimal point, the result remained the same, because there are an infinite number of eights. The same can be said of any and all infinitely repeating decimals, including 0.999. ..2. ) "inf. -1 = inf. However, inf. - 1 - inf. = -1. "The issue with this statement is that infinity, as a concept, can be applicable in some situations, and not applicable in others. Infinity cannot be balanced with any real number. When you start to use infinity to balance infinity, you are stepping outside of the boundaries of real numbers, thus defeating the concept. In addition, I would like to point out that the second equation used in this argument is essentially ∞ - 1 = ∞ - 1A different approach to the same problemTo the point, an infinitesimal difference ie. , (a - (1/∞)) is not a difference within the real, nor complex number system, because it cannot be quantified. (∞ + a ) = ∞ {a = R}That is to say that you can add any real number to infinity, and it will still equal infinity. (My apologies for the reiteration, but I feel that it is best to hold a mathematical debate with consistency in mind. )Provided that we state that the above is true of infinity, we can make some assumptions about the concept of 0.999. .. Seeing as 0.999. .. is an infinitesimal amount less than 1, we can define 0.999. .. by using a quotient. That having been said, 0.999. .. = 1 - (1 / ∞) = (∞ - 1) / ∞ Algebra tells us that (∞ - 1) / ∞ = (∞ + (-1)) / ∞Now, armed with the above knowledge that "you can add any real number to infinity, and it will still equal infinity," and knowing that -1 fits within the real number system, we can state that "∞ - 1 = ∞"Thus, we can also state: (∞ + (-1)) / ∞ = ∞ / ∞ = ∞^0 = 1I rest and await my opponent's response
.9999999 bar does not = 1

And I would like to welcome him to ddo. Seeing that my opponent is familiar with the subject I will get strait to the point. I take issue with the Prof at the following point: ". .. Subtract 0.999. .. , or "x" from both sides. .. 9x = 9" 10x-x= 9x However, the other side of the equation is not true. when x was multiplied by 10, ".999. .. " became 9.9999. .. . what is left out is the fact that there is now one less 9 at the end. Now, one may be tempted to say that since there are infinite 9's this shouldn't matter. However contrary to popular belief, in the world of infinity, not all infinities are created equal. inf. -1 = inf. However, inf. - 1 - inf. = -1. So, when x is multiplied by 10 there are "inf. -1". 9's following the decimal point. As opposed to x, which has inf. 9's following it. Thus when subtracted, we do not have "9" but rather a value approaching 9. Thus while .999. .. is obviously approaching 1, it is not equivalent to 1.
.9999999 bar does not = 1

The initial idea of .9999999 bar (henceforth referred to as "0.999. .. ") not being equal to one comes from the false assumption that 0.999. .. is a "number", when 0.999. .. is in fact, a geometric convergence which is equal to 1. There are many explanations which express the exact same, but few go far as to explaining why. Why 0.999. .. is equal to one is what I propose to explain throughout this debate. Why 0.999. .. is not a "number"In this section, I intend to prove that 0.999. .. is neither a rational, nor an irrational number. A rational number is defined as "any real number of the form a / b , where a and b are integers and b is not zero. "Source: . http://dictionary.reference.com...An irrational number is defined as "a number that cannot be expressed as a ratio between two integers and is not an imaginary number. If written in decimal notation, an irrational number would have an infinite number of digits to the right of the decimal point, without repetition. " Source: . http://dictionary.reference.com...;Thus, based on the knowledge that 0.999. .. cannot be expressed in the form of "a / b, when a, and b are integers, and b is not zero", and the knowledge that 0.999. .. is a repeating decimal, we can safely say that it fits into neither of the above definitions. With that knowledge in hand, what precisely is 0.999. .. ? Well, to put it blankly, 0.999. .. is a concept, not at all unlike √(-1); however, much unlike √(-1), 0.999. .. can be resolved into a real, rational number using simple algebra. Which brings us to our. .. Proof that 0.999. .. = 1x = 0.999. .. Multiply both sides by 10. ..10x = 9.999. .. Subtract 0.999. .. , or "x" from both sides. ..9x = 9Divide both sides by 9. .. x = 1 With that having been said, I rest and await my opponent's reply.
Should the United States Continue to Allow Cloning

I would like to start by apologizing for replying so late. Now that I have more time on my hands I can focus more attention on this debate. I would first like to ask a question to my opponent: You said that "In basic terms, the method used for cloning was similar (if not identical) to the method used on Dolly the sheep". Given this is true, then why was Dolly's death so premature, and why did similar problems not occur in the rats tested on? My opponent points out a scenario in which 582 mice was cloned and healthy. However, that was only one of the few times in which cloning was actually successful. According to naturalnews, "only 10 percent of the cloned animals survived through the research trials", although somewhat unrelated, it should be pointed out that the company admitted that the animals had underwent "unnecessary suffering" in the process. More times than not, cloning leads to some sort of genetic mutation and eventually death or severe impairment in the clone. In this round I would also like to bring up the issue of ethics. The first indication that our cloning methods are unjust is that they cause unnecessary pain to the clones, of which some could be humans. Cloning techniques are, in most cases, highly inaccurate and can cause a variety of genetic, psychological, and physical disorders in the living thing created. Examples of this is Dolly the sheep, who died of a weakened immune system, and a water buffalo cloned in India in 2009 that died because of lung defects. These animals should not have to suffer consequences that did not need to be presented upon them, thus why I think cloning is unethical.
Should the United States Continue to Allow Cloning

We are currently in an age in which our use of technology is being expanded beyond the human imagination of even a few years ago. By definition, cloning is the process of producing similar populations of genetically identical individuals. Since the birth of Dolly, the cloned sheep, there has been public concern regarding advancing biotechnology by the suspicion that science is at the mercy of the technological imperative. At any angle in which this issue is attacked with, there is always going to be a group that can defend against it. However, there is a certain point in which we should allow technology to dictate so far. I will begin this debate by arguing that cloning has led to unnecessary suffering of the cloned thing.
Abortion should be legalized nation wide for any woman over the age of 16 without parental consent

most of the cases I've known where children are pregnant abortion is the better option. But I think the involvement of responsible adults in helping them reach a decision to have one is important.. I didn't specify who these adults should be but limiting it to those whose professions (nurses, social workers, doctors and others whose professional ethics require respect for confidentiality and self determination would not be unwise
Abortion should be legalized nation wide for any woman over the age of 16 without parental consent

Before having an abortion a woman under the age of 21 would be required to present a form signed by a parent or responsible adult certifying the abortion is in the woman's best interest and she has made a well reasoned decision to choose an abortion. There could be someone at the abortion clinic-- a nurse or social worker for example who could interview the child and then complete and sign the form allowing the abortion.
Abortion should be legalized nation wide for any woman over the age of 16 without parental consent

I do not agreed that it should be raised to 21. That is an extremely high age to have parental control over a young woman's body. Parents do not always know best. There are still many parents who are bigoted and would force a woman to have a child she didn't want. Some parents do not act in the best interest of their child, but rather in the interest of religion and their own personal beliefs. Parents should not have so much control over a young woman's body, I like the idea of having a trusted adult sign off on it, but there are also many young woman who have no adults they can trust in their life. I still stand with my original statement that any woman 16 or older should be able to sign for an abortion without any consent from an adult.
Abortion should be legalized nation wide for any woman over the age of 16 without parental consent

There should be less restricted access to abortion services than what currently exists. However the decision to have an abortion is a serious one and parents are in a good position to help their child make the correct decision. I would not lower the age requiring parental consent to 16 but raise it to 21. Teenagers including in their late teens are prone to impulse and making poor choices and thus still need parental guidance. However I would add a provision which would allow the child to seek consent for a responsible qualifying adult other than their parents. Who this would be would need to be defined and determined. What is important is for adults to be involved. Parents are best but that is not always possible or appropriate
Abortion should be legalized nation wide for any woman over the age of 16 without parental consent

Currently, you must be 18 to have an abortion without parental consent. Some states require that you must have both parents consent if you want to get an abortion younger than that. I believe it is wrong to place a woman's choice over her body in her parent's hands. A 16 year old girl is more than capable of deciding what to do with her own body. It's her body and therefore, her choice. It's not up to the parent to make a decision that would affect her for the rest of her life. She should not be forced to parent an unwanted or unplanned child. Children are not only a lot of work, they can also be extremely expensive. The cost of having a child would follow the young woman for the rest of her life. If she doesn't want a child, it's not up to the parents to decide.
Smoking Ban

I never accept debates with five minute debating periods, but if someone challenges me specifically to a five minute-per round debate, I'll show no mercy. Also, I assume the first round is not for acceptance. Let the quick debating begin!To begin, I will introduce utilitarian ethics: “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to attain it. Each is the guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.”[3]Next, my opponent overestimates the direct health costs of smoking: “The actual odds of a smoker dying from smoking before the age of 75 are about 1 in 12. In other words, 11 out of 12 life-long smokers don’t die before the age of 75 from a smoking-related disease... This would place the lifetime odds of dying from smoking at 6 to 1 (45 million smokers divided by 100,000 deaths per year x 75 years), rather than 3 to 1. However, about half (45 percent) of all smoking-related deaths occur at age 75 or higher. Calling these deaths “premature” is stretching common usage of the word. The odds of a life-long smoker dying prematurely of a smoking-related disease, then, are about 12 to 1.”[1]Then my opponent overestimates the health costs of second hand smoke: “'The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality,' the researchers wrote, although they do not rule out a small effect. 'The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.'It is generally considered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is roughly equivalent to smoking one cigarette per day,' according to Enstrom and Kabat. 'If so, a small increase in lung cancer is possible, but the commonly reported 30 percent increase in heart disease risk--the purported cause of almost all the deaths attributed to secondhand smoke--is highly implausible.'”[1][2]Finally, my opponent assumes that only smoking bans will work; however, this is not true: “Most seats in most restaurants are already designated nonsmoking, and there is little evidence that nonsmokers who visit restaurants and bars believe smoking is a major concern. In restaurants with smoking and nonsmoking sections, better ventilation systems rather than smoking bans can solve any remaining concerns. Smoking bans have had severe negative effects on restaurants, bars, and nightclubs in cities where such bans have been enacted. Smokers choose to stay home or visit with friends who allow smoking in their homes, or spend less time (and less money) in bars and nightclubs before leaving. Smoking bans can also move noisy and potentially dangerous crowds onto sidewalks, and divert police resources from battling more serious crime.”[1]Let's see if my opponent can respond.Sources[1]: http://heartland.org...[2]: http://news.heartland.org...[3]: http://mises.org...
should we make eye contact with autists

so my opponent brings up one very flawed argument. he/she/it says that giving autists eye contact will "only further the false belief within them that they too are human" however they have completely ignored the fact that autists are not capable of feeling joy/inclusion or emotions in general in the first place. the purpose of this eye contact is to remind humans that we are superior to autists and even if we keep them separated, we will not be able to determine this. therefore, we must keep masking eye contact with autists in order to also advance in science. according to leo kanner, a doctor professor at johns hopkins university, "coproporphyrin levels were elevated in children with autistic disorder relative to control groups...the elevation was significant. These data implicate environmental toxicity in childhood autistic disorder" thus we wouldnt have known vaccines cause autism if we didnt make eye contact with them in the first place. this eye contact will prevent autism spread
should we make eye contact with autists

We should not make eye contact with autists. Firstly, this is dangerous. Autists are unpredictable and it is essential to maintain dominance when around one. Just like you would approach a bear you must be calm, collected, and not give into its gaze. When near an autist you need to keep eye contact to as close to absent as possible. Secondly, beyond this fact there is a much larger picture of the impact it has on society. Autists are to be kept separate from the rest of us humans and eye contact is one way to widen the isolation that keeps human civilization intact. As my opponent has mentioned autists are different to say the least and so to give them the same human interaction as much as giving them eye contact will only further the false belief within them that they too are human. Lastly, I would like to simply conclude by saying eye contact regardless is pointless as autists cannot comprehend the emotions coming with it and so it is better to preserve yourselves and humanity.
should we make eye contact with autists

so i will be bringing up three major points in my argument. first, autists are not normal people. they are underdeveloped, inferior and have no sense of reality. this supports my argument because even if we make eye contact or not with autists, they will not care for they are subhuman in terms of their capabilities of feeling emotions. second, most autists are blind. according to Dr. Susan Barron, PhD and Facilitator for the Lighthouse Guild Tele-support group for Parents of Children with Autism, a lot of kids with autism are blind which means they are just a pile of beef and have no idea you are looking at their peculiar and inferior human traits. my last point is autists are evil and cheat in basic human functions such as playing minecraft. therefore, we should make eye contact with autists since they are not capable of comprehending self consciousness and we must make eye contact to as a society learn more about what makes white non autists the superior race.
Teenagers should be aloud to purchase and use sex toys.

I'm not... saying that we should get rid of sex ed... what? And uhhh.... how would it be negative again??????????? Ummm... Also... ITS REALLY CONFUSING WHEN YOU PUT EVERYTHING IN CAPS FOR NO GOOD REASON. IT JUST MAKES IT FEEL LIKE YOURE YELLING AT ME AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS ABOUT TO HAVE A HEART ATTACK. Conclusion: I can't even tell what you just said to me and I don't think you understand what i'm arguing.
Teenagers should be aloud to purchase and use sex toys.

WOW, WHAT AN INTERESTING TOPIC. I think that society should know how to answer that question. NO, NO THEY SHOULDN'T. FIRST OF ALL, IN THIS SOCIETY, EVERYBODY IS DEVELOPING MINDS THAT THINK NEGATIVELY. WOULDN'T IT BE A BAD INFLUENCE ON TEENAGERS. I mean, by doing this, we are encouraging and fueling the fire of many dirty minds of this world. And isn't it Sex Ed's job to educate them about them. I mean, they might not even using this object for the intended purposes.
I (as in me) should not be capitalized

Well I personly believe, my opponent is right, him they, them, and she should be capitalised, I must disagree and attempt to prove my opponents case wrong. On that note, I should be captilzed becuse it specifically refers to one person. In a scentce it is not hard to determin who you are talking about when you say "I went cliff jumping yesterday." I is refering to the person talking. When someone says, "Yeah we went cliff jumping, and he broke his ankle." You have no idea who he is talking about.
I (as in me) should not be capitalized

On the contrary to our wonderful opposer, It is my opinion that I should be capitalized. To come to this conclusion you first have to think, when do you capitalize the first letter of a word? You do so at the beging of a scentence or the first letter in someone's name. When talking about something that happend to you, it would be ridiculous to say your own name. So we substute our own name. When you do this, that Represents your name. I is to your name, as x is to a number in an equation. Thank you.
why should dog have to be mico chipped

My opponent argues that since children playing in a garden also have the desire to be free that if we micro chip dogs that we should also micro chip the children. However children are humans, they are a direct part of society and at one point in there life they will be sentient if they are not yet. Humans have an obligation to protect other humans. Also a parent does not simply let there child run off if they are not at an age in which they can be trusted to be on there own. Stating that since a child can run off just like a dog is an invalid point to state that dogs should not be micro chipped. A governments main source of income is from taxes and the such. This is not a matter of whether the government has money to put this in place or not its the matter that if it was put in place the government would simply be throwing away money. A cost is required not only to put money back to the government but also to keep the economy in a positive cycle. My opponent has provided no definite points as to why micro chipping should not be law. They have simply stated how it will be costly for some, and that dogs should not run away, if they have a good master.
why should dog have to be mico chipped

as was said if the goverment cannot afford it then it should not be made law it should be advised but not made law. if u already have a dog then you should not have to if you don't want to, but if you rae buying a new dog then you should want to micro chip your dog but if not then you have no one to blame but your self. all that i am really trying to say is that; - it should not be made law -people who are buying new dogs should be highly advised to -people already owning dog should not have to do anything -and to me a person whos low on money ï¿½20-ï¿½30 is what i get a week so thats alot of money to someones who would rather buy things they need than spend it on somthing they feel they don't need. another point made as my opponant said dog just want to be free and they do not know right from wrong. but so do small children when they are playing in the garden they want to escape they long to be free they don'y know what they are doing does this mean that we should micro chip our children as well?
why should dog have to be mico chipped

----------------- Rebuttal ----------------- My opponent has failed to respond in anyway to my point that making micro chipping mandatory would furthermore reduce the number of lost dogs, and also provide a way to capture those people who decide to steal them. My opponent states that if one is able to keep a dog in there house even though they are short on money that it is awful for them to be required to pay the small amount of money to have a dog micro chipped. However if a owner of a dog truly does value the pet then this mere amount of money should come at no problem. Pets are owned by people because the provide companionship. If a owner truly does care about there dog then there is no reason not to spend a little amount of money to have them micro chipped. My opponent also states that if this were to be made a law that it should be free of charge. However if this were to be law it is highly unreasonable to make it free of charge. It would take a large amount of money to enforce this kind of law and this money would easily be taken from the small fee needed to micro chip the dog. Also the government does not have the money to simply fork over all the needed money to put the research, and implementation of these micro chips into place.
why should dog have to be mico chipped

back to the not being able to afford to have a dog, if you already have a dog and are struggleing to keep it but do not want to give it to a home becuase the animal shelters are brimming, then making it law that dogs have to be micro-chipped is awful, if you are just buying a new dog then fair enough this is a precaution. However if they made micro-chipping free insead if makeing it between ï¿½20-ï¿½30 then yes by all means make it law but the fact that they are making it law and you have to put your own money in your back pocket to do this as well as pay for everything else is criminal. overall i think that mico chipping is a good idea what i'm trying to get across is that it should not be made law and if it does it should be free of charge