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

If a calculator cannot contrive the possibility of there being what you have stated, then how can humans possibly do so ourselves if we were the original inventors of the calculator? What separates a calculator's "mathematical conduct" and a human's "mathematical conduct"? The only way for CON to win this argument is through a sophist's use of semantics. This mathematical conduct you speak of, would you please care to elaborate? Multiplying 1/3 by 3 would guarantee you precisely 1, as you have mentioned, but only because the fraction is IMPLIED as a whole number. If we were to take it piece-by-piece, which would be 0.33_, times that by three, then it cannot possibly equal 1, by logic. HOWEVER, the resulting 0.000_1 value is so small, it would have no use in mathematical equations. That's like saying subtracting infinity from infinity, or multiplying infinity by infinity, to reinforce my previous argument. I do not see any theory here, just simple logistics. While indeed physicists employ calculus, what makes your physics professor have more merit than the word of a thousand other physics professors? Being a student myself, I know that there are at least a dozen ways of simplifying this equation in order for it to equal 1. I would not choose to go through that many variables, because it is time-consuming, but if you look at Wikipedia (oh God not Wikipedia!) then you'll find a plethora of premises which should satisfy you. While I'm on this rant, I wouldn't so far as to say that calculus is the most complex of all mathematical branches, as that is subjective to the beholder. A 6 year old could say addition and subtraction is the most complex thing they've ever seen. Also, I was exaggerating my claims with a hyperbolic expression, you took it far too seriously. BUT, while we're on the subject of statistics, my proofs of 0.999_ equaling 1 totals up to much more proofs than you can claim on paper. Practically, the statement is true. While it may not make sense from a logical point of view, in reality, that's all that matters. "Furthermore, my opponent's argument that .333 goes on forever is flawed, because it is a calculator value, not the true value. Again, 1/3 is actually 0.333 and one third." I don't see what you are trying to say here. Calculators can't input infinity, because it has no value. Therefore, CON saying that 1/3 is "actually 0.333 and one third" is false, because: 1. 1/3 is actually 0.333_ and so on... 2. You can't add a decimal ending in infinity to another ending in infinity "Continuing with my opponent's proof equation "scenario", it is not proper, because while it is true, I would again say that that does not conclude that .9999999999(forever and ever) equals 1/3. It doesn't prove it." If that equation cannot sustain your needs, then your words cannot sustain the given scenario. Words are not the same as numbers, either CON can start providing more mathematical proofs AGAINST 0.999_ = 1, or I am the victor. As I've mentioned earlier, semantics is the only way for CON to win, albeit I think I have established enough high ground, so please vote for me, PRO. Thank you.
.999 Repeating is Equal to 1

I only wish we had more time to discuss this enthralling, but fallacied, theory. To begin, I will state that the reason that a calculator gives 1/3 to be 0.3333. .. .repeating on and on forever is that it cannot conceive the possibility of there being a fraction of a decimal, because it violates the code of mathematical conduct. However, this is the truth of the matter, because if 1/3 is 0.333. .. and 1/3, then, in turn, multiplying that by 3 will give us 1. Precisely 1, as it is supposed to be. This theory is supported by various physicists, as well as my physics teacher, Mr. Smith, and the physics head of Royse City High School, Mrs. Powers. So, there you have it, since they must use calculus, the most complex of all mathematics branches, in physics calculations. Also, that disproves the theory that 99.999(on and on) percent of mathematicians and scientists agree with him on this subject. That argument is ENTIRELY false, because if 99.99999999% of math and science scholars agree with my opponent, then that leaves out at least two individuals of that category. Do the math, multiply 6 billion by .9999999999, see what you get. Furthermore, my opponent's argument that .333 goes on forever is flawed, because it is a calculator value, not the true value. Again, 1/3 is actually 0.333 and one third. I do apologize for my grammatical error when I said that by dividing .333 you get .999. That is untrue. I meant multiply, not divide. Next, just because approximations are not implied does not mean that they don't have to be accounted for. Calculators must, in actuality, approximate the value of 1/3, because of the polite mathematical rule I mentioned before. Continuing with my opponent's proof equation "scenario", it is not proper, because while it is true, I would again say that that does not conclude that .9999999999(forever and ever) equals 1/3. It doesn't prove it. My opponent's closing statement also leaves us with no tangible proof, instead leaving us to ponder just how massive infinity truly is. Instead, my statement that 1/3 equals .333 and one third simplifies the issue, leaving the con side of this debate as the victor. Thank you for this debate, it was very fun.
.999 Repeating is Equal to 1

I accept your challenge. Thank you. You have to understand the proper concepts of this before you take a stance on it. 1/3 equals to 0.3333 repeating, meaning it is infinite after that. It is not an approximation, it is INFINITY and repeating. Also, my original argument was simply that 0.99999999 REPEATING equals to 1. Approximations were never implied, as this is INFINITY we are dealing with. Also, I am not too clear on your math, as when you divide 0.333 (I assume this to be repeating, so it's 1/3) by 3, you get 0.11111111 repeating. Dividing 3 by 0.33333 repeating equals to 0.99999. And even if my logic is somehow flawed, there are many more scenarios which outnumber your premise. For all sake of arithmetic, 99.9999999999999% and repeating (no pun intended) of all mathematicians and scientists in the world will tell you that 0.9999999... = 1. Is this scenario approximate? .9_=x 10x=9.9_ minus x from both sides and you receive: 9x=9 x=1 Also, you cannot subtract from infinity. If you subtract 0.9999 repeating from 1.0, assume that the 0.1 will still be infinite, meaning your answer cannot be provided if it is to result in anything tangible. I hope this makes sense. Thank you.
.999 Repeating is Equal to 1

I couldn't help but notice when I saw this debate posted, and I noted that his original opponent forfeited. I will not be so inclined. Essentially, the term equals is defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary as "to be equal to; especially : to be identical in value to. " Unfortunately for my opponent, .999 is only an approximation of 1. Approximation is defined by the same source as "something that is approximate; especially : a mathematical quantity that is close in value to but not the same as a desired quantity. " Further, my opponent's original argument that 1/3 equals .333. .. is flawed, because that is not true. It is only an approximation. Consider this. By multiplying 1/3 by 3, you get 3/3, which, when divided, becomes 1. However, when you divide .333(continues on forever) by 3, you get .999 (continues on forever) which rounds to one. Therefore, not all fractions are direct representations of their decimal counterparts. Sometimes, they are approximate. This is one of those instances.
Even if you don't belive in the mormon church, everyone should have their standards

Over the Internet, it's harder to portray emotion, so if you started swearing at me you wouldn't be taken as seriously. If I saw your face and heard your voice, however, there would be a much better chance that I would be more affected. They also wouldn't have believed your argument because you would've gone back on your word. I definitely believe that anger venting makes one angrier, however I've never heard the fact that it makes you more likely to get cardiovascular disease. Well, I learn something new every day! :D
Even if you don't belive in the mormon church, everyone should have their standards

Sorry I've not been able to get back to you. In defense of the "it is hard to take you seriously if you swear" arguement, lets say that I got angry at you because of your last aguememt, and started rapidly insultiing you, swearing at you, and calling you names. Would you take me as seriously? Would you still want to talk to me? Would other people viewing this debate still belive in my arguement if they did at first? Second, swearing is a form of anger venting, and studies show that anger venting actually makes you angrier, more likely to make rash decisions, and more likely to get cardiovascular disease.* *http://www-personal.umich.edu... (just look at the procedure)
Even if you don't belive in the mormon church, everyone should have their standards

I've never heard of or seen anyone eat too much meat. Of course, it's definitely possible, but the thought never came to my mind until now because you have mentioned it. I now understand what you mean and agree with that. How is swearing "immensely bad" for someone? I do agree that there are better ways of expressing emotion and it can come off as immature. I rarely swear, however when I'm mad and lose all "filters", I don't hesitate to and it has the opposite effect than what you said of not being able to be taken seriously. Once I start swearing which I normally wouldn't do, it becomes very apparent that bad stuff is about to happen... I agree overall that swearing should be avoided in general. Some people have a breaking point like I do. It takes A LOT to get me to my breaking point, but once I'm there it can be much worse than most other people's. It comes out because one has no control anymore because all their emotions are coming out at once. In general, I agree that swearing should be kept to a minimum.
Even if you don't belive in the mormon church, everyone should have their standards

By eat meat sparingly, I don't mean don't eat meat, I mean don't eat too much, like alcohol, as you pointed out earlier. Some people eat WAY too much meat, and as a result are unhealthy. As far as avoiding swearing, there are other wats to express emotion, and frankly, it is immensely bad for you, as well as making it hard for people to take you seriously. For your be modest rebuttal, I agree. Thank you for your response.
Even if you don't belive in the mormon church, everyone should have their standards

Hello. This is a topic that I wish was discussed a little more often. Thank you! I will be happy to go through each of these. Don't Smoke: This one I agree with. The nicotine contained in the cigarettes makes the unhealthy habit addictive. Smoking is known to cause lung cancer, yellow teeth, and can make someone appear older than they actually are. Are there any other reasons besides these that you think we shouldn't smoke? Don't drink: I don't completely agree with this standard. Of course, alcohol should not be consumed in large doses to the point when people's speech and actions are affected severely. Small doses, however, are okay as long as no harm is being done. Don't do tobacco: Again, the nicotine makes it addictive so I agree with this one as well. Eat meat sparingly: From arguments I've seen online, humans are omnivores. They were originally meant to eat plants however their system can digest meat as well. The things people eat (other than humans) should be up to their decision whether we agree with it or not. Don't swear: I avoid swearing for the most part. It makes someone seem immature. I don't feel that everyone should follow this, though, as it can express emotions in a different manner than normal words can. Be modest: This I agree with for people, however, it's a person's choice to choose how they dress. Everyone's definiton of modesty is different too, so it can be up to someone's opinion. Again, thank you for covering this topic! Hope to hear your response soon. :)
nonviolence and civil disobedience

The Resolution is "Could the principles of nonviolence and civil disobedience endorsed by Thoreau, King, and Gandhi still be relevant and solve conflicts in our twenty-first century." As the Pro I only have to show how the use of nonviolence and peaceful protest can still be used successfully in the world. Egypt and Tunisia were once oppressive countries that because of large rallies of peaceful protesters now have new governments that are less oppressive than the previous ones. http://www.usip.org...
college fee

Thank you for this debate. Now I'd first like to say free stuff is great. I love free stuff. I wish collages could be free. Unfortunately to have a good collage and successful country, collages can't be free. You have to first come up with a plan to pay the thousands per student per year. The plan must be a fair plan, not a plan that makes successful people pay for other people's collage. In the case of poor people who can't afford collage, there are scholarships that pay for one to go to cola ge for free if they are smart or athletic. If one truly works hard they can get a scholarship. Free collage is a great theory, however in reality it won't work.
Gay marriage shouldn't be legal

An ordained minister is required by Christian church weddings and is valid for any non-religious wedding. By using an ordained minister for non-religious weddings this legitimizes the fact the weddings have religious ties.Churches vary, but each religion is based on some doctrine. That doctrine doesn't approve of gay relationships and it follows that weddings wouldn't be approved of either.You dropped my argument about two consenting incestual adults. If they both consent, why can't they be married? Also, a slippery slope is different from the slippery slope fallacy. I didn't conclude that gay marriage would result in marriage of bestiality but stated the obvious that this would result from the same liberalization on who can be married. My point is that marriage is natural considering the biological purpose that males are anatomically matched to be compatable with females. The US is not a theocracy but the institution of marriage has religious tie-ins. The governmental benefits of marriage are separate from the sanctity of marriage. This sanctity should be preserved. Also I'm unable to find the source I've read but it could've been concerning the population of gays who choose to me married in states that are legalized vs. states that don't legalize gay marriage. Gay marriage should not be allowed because the institution of marriage is sanctified through religion. It's also a slippery slope of liberalizing who can and cannot be married. It's biologically natural for a man to be with a woman the same way marriage is natural for marriage to be between a man and a woman.
Gay marriage shouldn't be legal

My opponent now claims that an ordained minister is required at every wedding. This is not true. There are many civil or public weddings, which are presided over by a state official/civil servant, such as a Justice of the Peace [1]. If religion was tied inseparably into marriage, there wouldn't be these public weddings. Additionally, if marriage belonged to the Church, why would they allow atheists to get married but not gays? Furthermore, many churches support gay marriage [2,3]. My opponent now brings up the slippery slope fallacy and even acknowledges it as the slippery slope fallacy. His argument is thus erroneous, and I don't have to respond to it. However, I will.Heterosexual Marriage: Two consenting adultsHomosexual Marriage: Two consenting adultsBestiality: One adult and one animal; the animal is incapable of informed consent. An animal can never wed a human. Many heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, oral sex, etc, so claiming a vagina is meant for a penis doesn't hold much water. Furthermore, marriage is not about procreation either. If it were, why do we allow infertile/sterile, elderly, and people who plan to be childless to marry? My opponent completely drops my argument about the US not being a theocracy and not making laws based on religion. Please extend this point. My opponent says he cannot find the article, so I see no need to refute this unsubstantiated point further. However, I will add this - the Huffington Post found that states that have allowed gay marriage have lower divorce rates than states that do not [4]. I look forward to my opponent's case in the final round! [1] http://wedding.theknot.com...[2] http://www.ucc.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;(To open up the last source, delete the semi-colon at the end).
Gay marriage shouldn't be legal

Thanks for the welcome. Marriage may have origins back in Ancient Greece and in ancient nations, but an ordained minister is required to be at every wedding. The religious tie-ins are evident throughout a marriage while they give their sacred vows. A person doesn't specifically need to be a Christian or religious to get married, but I'm arguing that the institution of marriage is sanctified and tied in to religion inseparably. There has to be a point where we draw the line for equality. Why not allow for incestual marriages? Or marriage between a man and his horse? It's a slippery slope to say that "everyone has the right to (x)." A vagina is obviously meant for a penis and how we naturally procreate. I was trying to find the article I was reading yesterday but I can't find it. It was a statistic showing that gay people tended not to stay married as long and as often as straight couples do and it was in a state where gay marriage is legal. I'll keep searching and provide it to the debate if I find it.
Gay marriage shouldn't be legal

I'd like to begin by welcoming PRO to the site! I hope we may have a fruitful debate! Marriage is not an institution with Christian roots, as my opponent falsely claims. The institution of marriage predates Christianity. Many marriages happened in Ancient Greece and Rome, for example [1]. Additionally, religion need not play a huge factor in marriage. The crux of my opponent's argument rests on marriage sharing an eternal bond with Christianity. I have already removed the foundation for this bond. Additionally, if marriage was solely a Christian institution, how do Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and other members of other religions get married? And if marriage was only a religious institution, why are atheists allowed to marry? All of this debunks the association my opponent claims exists between the Church and marriage. Even if this connection did exist, something I have disproven, the US is not a theocracy. No Westernized country is a theocracy. Decisions are not made based on religion. Indeed, the US actively prevents this, establishing with the First Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (common knowledge). To deny gays the right to marriage while allowing it for straights is, in the US, a violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In the Supreme Court Case Loving v. Virginia, the Court established that "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man" [2]. Thus we may indeed treat marriage as a right granted to one group of people (heterosexuals) but denied to another (homosexuals). Lastly, my opponent claims that most gays who get married can't stay married. He fails to provide even an ounce of evidence to support this claim, and thus I dismiss it entirely. I look forward to seeing what my opponent says in the next round! [http://www.psychologytoday.com...] 2 [http://law2.umkc.edu...]
Gay marriage shouldn't be legal

Marriage is an institution that has Christian roots and sanctified by the church. The bible says that a man should not lie with a man. Why would homosexuals want to be married if it's part of a religious background? They could just do whatever they want and fall in love with another guy but not have it be legally recognized marriage. That's one thing a lot of people fail to consider because not allowing gays to be married doesn't mean they can't love or have any sexual freedom it's specific to marriage. Most gays don't stay married when they get married anyway. Equal rights shouldn't be the case in every case. Especially with a sacred institution like marriage.
Resolved: Just governments ought not persecute victimless crimes.

I affirm. Defintions: Just = guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness Ought = Indicates moral desirability Government = the authoritative body of persons in a state Prosecute = to institute legal proceedings against a person Victimless = an action to which all participating parties have consented Rules: Round Structure: 1. Pro posts topic, definitions, basic rules/Con posts acceptance only 2. Pro posts opening argument/Con posts opening argument 3. Pro posts rebuttal/Con posts rebuttal to Pro's opening argument 4. Pro defends his arguments; concludes/Con defends his arguments; concludes. In round number four, there ought to be no new arguments brought into the debate. No ad hominem. Do not drop the debater on forfeit. Vote for the side who wins- select winner voting.
am i true ? my enemy genies will try to believe in one of my god who is a thinking

i didnt created my god, i believe in my god whom i believe is the original god of universe and i prove his history in detail with everything understoodable and practically tested by humans to see if i am true or lie. understanding means what you come to know from someone but after you understand do you think what you understood practically test out and when you think bad on any god who is a thinking what happens ? you can feel weight inside your head or feel your head bad its the genies who cases on you who comes from your thinking (if you are human) in dream of humans or others thinking of understanding of someone comes in you from dream. i had suggest you to listen and understand my latest videos the most popular one must listen and understand once in lifetime to know my believe : i even talk to genies: hope your confusions are removed from your mind if you have mind. god bless everyone.
am i true ? my enemy genies will try to believe in one of my god who is a thinking

1) genie is understanding as thinking of someone like of human or anyone who thinks (genies origination : understanding as thinking) 2) my original god is my god who doesn't belongs to any religion. Maybe he wants me to have justice. 3) original truth is that which never becomes lie by anyone and original truth is that everything which you come to know is truth whether what is lie is truth and what is truth is truth because its original truth is that its truth. 4) you dont have to believe in me but practically test what i said whether its true or false and make sure its true or false so doubt from your mind is removed and you get correct believe and your life becomes beautiful. make sure no spirits tries to cheat with you to win from you. 5) seeing and hearing is the property of truth of original god so when you see me and hear me specially my videos you get believe of seeing and hearing which is of my original god. my religion has holy book which i translated almost 11 chapters if you listen to my holy book you will understand my believe its in english and i have to translate more remaining 16 chapters in english. link to my holy book on youtube : if you go through playlist you will understand what my believe is about. My believe doesnt belongs to any religion and it can be find out if it is any spirit property who might claim that i took property of any spirit property to show my believe. my believe is my believe in seeing and hearing to be truth and experience. have a wonderful day!