BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
0.9999 recurring is equal to 1

Intro The 0.999 recurring is to mean a continuous stream of nines, ever ending. I assume people know what I mean here. The Pro's burden is simple, to prove that 0.99 recurring is indeed equal to 1. I'm looking to see if there's any challengers out there. And before anyone gets at all tricky (sneaky, making new rules), don't get ridiculously tricky, it's also of course in base 10 that we're talking (no base 16 etc.) . Finally not every dash (-) or such is a minus sign or such. Case Let's say we have 2 numbers, A and B Firstly we times both by 10 - we get 10A and 10B Then we take 1 of the pronumeral from both 10A and 10B - 9A and 9B Now, if 9A = 9B then it is fair to simplify and say A=B. Essentially: A*10 = 10A B*10 = 10B 10A - A = 9A 10B - B = 9B If 9A=9B, A=B Keep this in mind. Now let's do it with the numbers in question. 1*10=10 (A*10) 0.9999... *10 = 9.999... (recurring) (B*10) 10-1=9 (10A-A) 9.999... - 0.999... = 9 (10B-B) 9=9 (9A=9B) Conclusion - A=B or in this case 0.99999999... (recurring) =1 Is there any person on the website who doesn't believe?
0.9999 recurring is equal to 1

I apologize for the vague second round, I wasn't near a computer for a while so I rushed something out when I saw I was near the time limit. .999... is an infinitesimally small number. This is part of the reason of why limits exist. If you were to draw this on a graph, the .999... would approach the number 1, but never intersect it. It would just get infinitely closer to it. The proofs that Pro has provided are correct under his interpretation of infinity. But to me 9.999... -.999... cannot compute, its like trying to divide an apple by an orange. To me they are just words now, since infinity cannot be expressed by any simple numerical means like this. It almost seems too easy, if you catch my drift. For example, if I wanted to subtract .999... from 9.999... I would have to perform subtraction for every number in 9.999... This process would continue into infinity, since the amount of 9's I would have to take into consideration are infinite. For Pro's proof to work means you have to stop subtracting at some point to get an answer of 1, which to me is not possible. What this debate has come down to is just an interpretation of infinity, which if I am correct, makes Pro's evidence and proofs null and void.
0.9999 recurring is equal to 1

Intro Con still hasn't attacked my main proof, granting it valid. And since the second try is based on the first, attacking the second is pointless. Also, I'm not sure if layout comes under any category of voting, but I'd like voters to realise the incoherence of my opponent's arguments. Without ado, let's proceed. My Case 1. The point is still unaddressed. To ever assume a difference is to assume a finite number of 9s, but there are an infinite number of 9s. 2-4 - Not countered, not will to waste time on them. New points: 1. If two numbers are different it should be possible to find another number in between the 2 numbers, but as I'm sure voters can deduce, this is not the case. 2. The number 0.9999.... can be expanded as: 0.9999... = 0.9+0.09.... ie. = 9/10 + 9/100.... = 9/10 + 9/10(1/10).... =9/10 + 9/10(1/10)^1 +9/10(1/10)^2.... In other words: 0.9999... = (9/10)(1/(1-1/10)) ie. = (9/10)(1/(9/10)) = (9/10)(10/9) =1 Voters, the resolution has been adequately proven in multiple ways and through multiple proofs. I strongly urge a Pro vote.
school should start later and end later.

Hello, Today there is 1 round of debate. Also there is no forfeiting or you lose.I believe that School should not start and end later because of 3 main reasons. My first reason is that there is less time to do homework. My second reason is that kids can't grow. My third reason is that we can't go to academies.My first reason is that there is less time to do homework. For example, if you end in like 7'o clock then you will have about 4 hours of homework. My second reason is that kid's can't grow. Scientist conclude that if you sleep late you can't grow because growing time is 10- 2.My third reason is thå† there is no time for academies. Because no one likes going to academies in the morning you usually go to academies in the afternoon to the evening.In conclusion I think that schools should not start and end later.http://sleepfoundation.org...
"Liberals thinks that everyone should have the same."

First, I would like to point out that the basis of your argument revolved around one example, and that example had to do with cafeteria lunch. Personally, I understand where these "liberal government officials" are coming from; however, I don't agree with their proposed suggestions... So what? The topic of debate isn't whether or not children in school should get free lunch. It's whether or not liberalism is synonomous with the word same. As previously mentioned, I believe that liberals aren't fighting for things to be the "same" but rather that things be more fair. So again, I disagree with the idea of the example at hand but that has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. Getting back to the topic of debate... Sameness. A particular statement you made was completely false. You noted, "That is the point, complete and total reliance on the gov't, that is what liberals want and that is what they strive for. Total control by gov't." First of all, again - this has nothing to do with liberals wanting everything to be the 'same.' But again, I disagree with what you have written. What you are describing is a form of communism. Liberalism does NOT equal communism. Communism is an economic ideology; liberalism a political ideology. Communism gives power to a certain few people and takes away individual rights and personal freedoms (choices) of citizens. Liberalism advocates openess and tries to give rights to ALL citizens - not just the rich and powerful. The reason your example was invalid was because it reflected a communist view: same-ness. Whereas I feel that a liberal view is more about CHOICE. I believe that the current system is a liberal one. It provides an alternative to children who cannot afford lunch meals, however, they have the choice of whether or not they want to utilize it. Personally I'm not interested in them trying to be "cool" or whatever ~ if they're hungry, they'll eat. Anyway, another question you posed was, "What is the point of parents if the Gov't is going to take care of your children from cradle to grave?" I agree. Which is why I - along with liberals - feel that the government should not have the right to a) decide who gets married because of their sexual preference -- b) keep marijuana illegal even while alcohol is legal -- c) decide whether or not a mother should be allowed to have an abortion. I feel that the latter issue (and in fact the others) should be a personal choice based on morality or "good parenting" etc -- not the government.
"Liberals thinks that everyone should have the same."

Here is the latest glaring example of liberalism trying to make everyone the "same" because something doesn't seem "fair" http://www.nytimes.com... The above link will take you to an article about the school lunch and breakfast programs subsidised by the federal govt'. In this article you will read that liberal gov't officials think it is unfair that children who receive gov't subsidies don't get the same food as those who pay for their food because they think it's unfair that the other children who pay for their food go through a different line than those who don't. The kids who pay for their food have more choices and can buy food that they want. But the kids who have their lunches subsidised by the gov't have to eat what is given to them. This is not "fair" it might make the child feel bad about his or her self. Liberals don't want other people to know who is taking money from the gov't and who isn't. Why? because it's not fair, everyone should be equal. Solutions to this horrendous problem include; Instituting a debit card system so that no one will know if you are paying or not at a huge expense to the school districts. Having the gov't pay for every single child's lunch regardless of the ability to pay. Only a liberal would think to make something cost twice as much as it already does because it might make some one feel bad because they are being subsidized by the Gov't. What is the point of parents if the Gov't is going to take care of your children from cradle to grave. That is the point, complete and total reliance on the gov't, that is what liberals want and that is what they strive for. Total control by gov't.
"Liberals thinks that everyone should have the same."

I took that quote from a comment you made on another debate. My argument is that liberals don't necessarily want everyone to have the "same" per se (lifestyle), but rather the same RIGHTS and OPPORTUNITIES. I also disagree with your follow-up comment on that debate as well, when you said that they (liberals) used the words "equality" and "fairness" because they want things to be the 'same.' Equal doesn't always equal same. For instance, in terms of the economy, a progressive tax is favorable to a liberal position because it puts an EQUAL percentage of taxation on the buyer, even if the *amount* of that percentage differs. The word fairness is also not a synonym for same. An example would be a system of hieracrhies at a place of employment. Say I have worked at a company for 5 years; you have worked in the same position at that company for 4 years. We both have equal amount of credentials/results, and you have the same production rate as I do. We both want the same holiday off, but only one of us can have it. In all FAIRNESS, most people would say that *I* should get that day off because I have worked at the company for longer than you have. So that would be a FAIR result, even if our personal outcomes were not the SAME result(result: I got the day off and you didn't). I could provide other examples, but for now I'm interested in what you have to say.
The philosophy of order and nonviolence is preferable to civil disobedience

I accept the challenge.I am not exactly sure what we are going to be debating, and Pro has not gotten back to me on it yet. I have waited to give him as much time as possible, but it looks like I will just find out in the next round.I will contend that it is justified and necessary to resist an establishment that creates a social order incompatible with the principles of justice, liberity, and morality and that it is unacceptable to comply with the orders of such an institution.I await Pro's argument.
The philosophy of order and nonviolence is preferable to civil disobedience

If there are any questions about the resolution, they should be asked in the comments section prior to acceptance. The resolution, character limit, and number of rounds are non-negotiable. The rules I've listed below may be changed if a logical reason to do so is presented. -> Rules <- - No semantics - Be courteous - Arguments must be as concise as possible - Argument may be based on evidence, but arguments may not be evidence Let's have a fun round!
Santa Clause exists

My only rebuttal to my opponent's paragraph of nonsense is as follows: yes, I have witnessed adults wrap presents and put them under the Christmas tree only to have their children open them the next morning. You made an assumption about my own life experiences, and used no factual evidence to back it up. Next time, Mr. Harrison, you should know what your saying before you say it. Also, your cookies are not better than mine, because you don't cook, and I don't leave out cookies on Christmas Eve. You can't be better than something that doesn't exist.
Santa Clause exists

First of all, con, ave Ceasar!!!!!! Alright, my only argument is that presents are under the Christmas tree the same day every year and nobody knows how they get there. We go to bed and, when we wake up, we have presents and egg nog and booze. Con can not say that parents buy the gifts, wrap them, and then put them under the tree because he has not ever witnessed this happening. Even if this rumor was true, Santa uses his powers to skip their house because he knows that those people do not want their children to experience Christmas magic. These people are known as one of the following: 1. A jack-a*s 2. An a*s hole 3. A d**k 4. A b**ch Or 5. A jack-off Santa also likes my cookies and milk a lot more than my opponents (he told me so)
Santa Clause exists

Anyone who is literate has read the title of this debate, and knows that this should be taken with more seriousness than any other debate on this website. The existence of god is not even in the same league of importance as the existence of Santa. Santa will be defined as the motherf**ker that delivers presents to all the good boy's and girl's on the night of December 24 for the, to find on December 25. Good luck Con.
Santa Clause exists

Your mother is one of the 5 things I listed above. Also, my opponent has not given any evidence to support his opinion that Santa does not exist. Just because he does not go to your house does not mean he couldn't go to every other good little boy or girls house in the world. Also I never stated that Santa likes my cookies that he finds on Christmas Eve better than the ones he finds at your house on Christmas Eve. Santa likes my cookies and milk better in general. My cookies are made with love, faith, and hope. Your's are made with bitter childhood memories of your mother feeding you lies about how Santa does not exist. Santa also hasn't had your cookies because you suck and don't put them out for the guy who brings children presents every year. In your next argument, try using actual arguments and quit avoiding the debate. It won't work.
Abortion is Murder

Hello, I would like to say, I have no contradiction to make. I do agree with your argument. However, I something to say. What is the right thing to do in this case? Do you think that it is right for abortion to occur? Becuase I have to say, using facts, for this debate especially, cannot solve the problem. For example, Hitler created laws to kill the Jews. The majority of the people in Germany supported Hitler. They thought they were RIGHT to murder Jews. But are they actually correct? Same as this scenario, you may think that abortion is not correct. But is that the correct answer? Or is it not correct? Actually, nobody knows. Nobody in this chaotic world even knows what's right and what's wrong. Actually, people think something right or wrong depending on what their peers say. But is their peers right, or wrong? And using facts can't really help. Why? Becuase they only explain what abortion is, and there are no clear answer. Also, when you used the Declaration of Independence as one example to support your claim, think about it. Is the Declaration of Independence right or wrong? And also, is Hitler's constitution right or wrong? Hitler's Consitution is no different from our Constitution. I'm not saying that our Consitution is crazy like his, but the main point is, nobody knows if our Constitution is right or wrong. Our Consitution may be similar to Hitler's Constitution but less crazy. But are we actually no different than Hitler's? The people supporting Hitler thought they were doing right. But if we support the President and the Constitution, could we be like the people who support Hitler? So really, it comes down to our opinion on this issue. But opinions are not accepted in debates because they are not the most reliable sources. But what do you think? Do you believe that abortion is wrong? Or is it right? Because, really, nobody knows the real answer to this particular problem. It all comes down to our opinions if that abortion is either a murder or not. And why? It's because we are humans and we do not know for sure what's right and what's wrong. Best wishes, Jason
Abortion is Murder

As this is the third round, the Con and I will now counter each other's arguments from Round 2. I agree that a bacterium is a cell. However, the bacterium does not have a genetic code specifically and only composed of human DNA, or a predetermined gender, as the human zygote does from conception. The definition of a human is "Any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens." Now, because of the DNA composition of the zygote, it is automatically a member of the species Homo Sapiens, and, thus, is a human being and incomparable to bacteria. Now, I'll analyze the Con's situation of being put down because of pain and only feeling pain. I would consider this murder as well, as it is the termination of a human life. However, I really don't think this is a good analogy, as the baby is not in pain. It is the mother's not wanting a baby that results in the abortion. A better analogy to that of a fetus within the womb would be a person in a coma. The person is unable to express emotion, feel pain, or really do anything except sustain vital life functions for some time, similar to that of a baby. We wouldn't kill the person in the coma, would we? No, of course not, as that person is alive and could wake up. The unborn baby is also alive and will be born, provided disease, external intervention, or accident do not occur, and has a much higher chance of living than that of the person in the coma. I look forward to hearing from the Con. Sources: http://www.dictionary.com... https://www.webmd.com...
Abortion is Murder

Hello! Before I continue on, I would like to say that I do believe that abortion is murder. But to strengthen my debate skill I choose to accept the Con of this debate. And I've got to say, this is really hard. Anyways, let's look at a scenario: Embryo are just bunch of cells that are not "formally structured" These embryo does not have a fully formed brain. They can't feel emotions because they're bunch of cells. Now, a bacteria is a cell. A bacteria doesn't have a fully formed brain They can't feel emotion. Is it okay if a bacteria is murdered? Yes. Just like that that, they're really not a specific difference between an embryo and the bacteria. Also, Let's say I was to die. But not only that, while I was about to die, I was in so much pain. So much pain that I couldn't feel anything else. So my doctor put me down. Is that murder? Not really, in every person's point of view. Now, from above, I can only feel pain and nothing else. (This includes emotions.) Now, an embryo can't think and even feel emotions. So you're basically saying "yes" that it is okay to kill an embryo. Hope to hear you soon, Best wishes, Jason http://scienceline.ucsb.edu... https://www.britannica.com...
Abortion is Murder

It is my contention that abortion is not murder. From the moment conception occurs, the zygote formed is a living, growing human being with full human genetic code. As it is composed of human DNA, the nature is undeniably human. It has an entirely different genetic composition from that of its mother, thus disproving the argument that "it is part of a woman's body and she can do what she likes with it". The unborn child is also biologically alive, as it fulfills all the scientific requirements for biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. The unborn child is also guaranteed to live provided disease, external intervention, or accident does not occur. Abortion is murder from a legal standpoint as well. The Declaration of Independence state that, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " Abortion ends the life of the unborn baby as well as taking away the baby's pursuit of happiness in life, clearly violating its rights. With this I conclude my initial arguments. After the Con states his arguments, we will then begin a round of countering each other along with stating further arguments. I hope to hear from the Con soon. Sources: . https://msu.edu... . https://www.spuc.org.uk... . http://www.ushistory.org...
Abortion is Murder

In this debate, I am taking the stance of the Pro. I think that abortion should be classified as murder and should be illegal. For the first round, simply post your stance on this issue. For the second round, we'll state the facts for our arguments. For the third round, we will counter each other. Finally, in the fourth round, we will finish countering along with providing closing statements. Before you accept, please make sure that you will be on consistently on while this debate is going on. Each side only has 72 hours to post a debate before they are automatically forfeited. So PLEASE make sure you are able to be on somewhat frequently while this debate is going on. That said, thank you and I look forward to our debate.
Abortion is Murder

Okay, So I do want to say that you never understood my point. The main point is that nobody really knows if abortion is either right or wrong. This is almost the same as if the people who supported Hitler never knew if they were right or wrong. So I just want to conclude with this: facts, do indeed, help us. However, it doesn't give the EXACT answer for morality. What you've proven is that facts and how abortion, in what you believe, is murder. How do you know that abortion is right? How do you know that abortion is wrong? This answer will never be shown. So I say is, there is no right answer and that we could be both wrong. What is the right choice? Nobody knows because we're humans You supported your argument with government, but how do you know if our government is right or even wrong? Really, nobody knows with the answer of morality. It is undefined, and really answering if abortion is/not murder is basically a morality question. Finally, I do want to say that it was really interesting arguing as a Con. This debate was really exciting and it was very fun. For me, it was hard to support the claim of why abortion is not considered murder when I did actually believe that abortion was considered as murder. However, I did learn so much and it was really fun. Thank you, Pro, for having this kind of debate. Sincerely, Jason
Abortion is Murder

This is the final round of this debate. I would like to thank the Con in advance for participating in this debate with me. For this final round, the Con and I will counter arguments from the 3rd round and provide our closing statements. The Con stated that "using facts can't really help". Using facts can help us to determine the truth, as has been proven many times before and will be proven many times in the future, and this same rule can also be applied to the abortion argument. I really don't think the Con comparing our government and documents to Hitler's is a good idea here. Hitler was trying to carry out genocide, while the pro-life movement is an act of trying to preserve human life and provide it with everything that a human deserves. Sure, people supported Hitler, but that doesn't make it right, does it? Of course not. Hitler's stances were created by presuppositions and biases, those of the pro-life movement are based on factual evidence - this is a big difference. My opponent also stated that we, as humans, cannot tell right from wrong. I disagree! Otherwise, why punish people for murder, or rape, or theft, or any other crime? The statement that we don't know right from wrong is absolutely absurd! Abortion is murder. I have established in this debate that the organism in the mother's womb is a living human baby that deserves to live. The termination of human life, which we are dealing with in an abortion, is, indeed, murder. When looking at the facts, it is clear that the unborn baby fulfills and contains all the characteristics that can also be applied to every living human being. Abortion is murder.