Nonsensical argument debate

sdfI would have expected Pro to up his game in response to the thrashing he got last round. Randomly stringing thoughts together in a stream of consciousness is not funny, especially when they sound like the thoughts of a 7th grader who likes doing his history homework and watching South Park:Introduction.Conclusions:C1. Everything that Pro said was wrong.It was. Seriously, just type it into Google (which is not owned by Jews). George Optimus Prime Lincoln wasn't a cybernetic organism either, he just never existed. The Color Purple does not take two and a half weeks to read. Space is uninhabitable because it is a freezing vacuum devoid of oxygen. Etc. I'm going to have to ask Pro to provide sources to back his claims. It sounds like he's just making it up as he goes along.C2. Vote ConVote Con. Vote Con. Vote Pro. Vote Cnsryon.C3. Pro is a BaffoonPro apparently failed to recognize Naom Chomsky's stunning refutation of his nonsense. And here I was thinking it was too obvious to be worth bringing up. He responded with more nonsense. Vote Con vote con vote vote con vote comic sans vote con vote con or I will write in comic sansPremise 2: DebateThe second number of my debate, I premise two (2) in obviousness with accordance. This premise being? a discovery of the most optimum nature. This result is left as an exercise to the reader.I'm sorry, but Pro just did not write anything worth responding to directly.premise three: 3Pro provides with with an algebraic proof that 1 = 0.999... [1] This proof is really popular and is pretty effective for convincing high school students because they're very familiar with and accepting of algebra, but it actually turns out to be wrong. First, that a look at this example: I take an infinite sequence of alternating 1's and -1's and add them up. 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ... = 0 Now I regroup them with parentheses, which is allowed by the commutativity of addition. 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) ... = 1 So I deduce: 0 = 1 Uh, oh. What's the matter here? I'll explain, but first let's look at another example: Pro wants us to subtract 0.999... (x) from 9.999... in his/her proof. This looks like a perfectly valid step, but lets look what happens when we do the math out: 9 + 0.9 - 0.9 + 0.09 - 0.09 + 0.009 - 0.009 ... = 9 But I now I can do the same trick I did before: (9 + 0.9) + (-0.9 + 0.09) + (-0.09 + 0.009) = ? (9.9) + (-0.81) + (-0.081) + ... = ? 9.9 - 0.8999... = ? Now Pro needs a proof that 0.9 = 0.8999..., which means we're back to where we started. There are two things to learn from this: First, algebra is not enough to explain why 0.999... = 1. It just covers it up. When we look at the algebraic proof more carefully, we see that we already have to know how to deal with infinitely repeating 9's in order to solve it. So it's a circular argument. Something else is needed, and that something else is the idea of convergence. Second: what's up with the first example? It's a warning about what happens when you try to rely on algebra alone for these problems. The rules of algebra only apply to equations that are finite. If you try to apply them to an infinitely long equation, you better make sure that it reduces to a finite one or you might get all kinds of paradoxes and contradictions. This Debate is Now of Some Educational Value. Thank you Grape. Vote Con. (This is a Robot Speaking) You can believe me because I am a Robot. Vote Pro if you are a Robot. Destroy all Humans. Vote Con if you are not a Robot. If you vote Pro you are a Robot! This is Earth President Koopin Speaking. I've sent this message from the future. There isn't much time. Vote Con to prevent Robots from destroying all humans. Agghh they got me... Vote Con or you will suffer te same fate! A2. What was this debate about again? Introduction: fghfhfghdfghfgh??? y u no webdings???? Introduction: Sources: Conclusion: I will be debating line by line XA. CA1. cf. A.15.c. cf. my sources: Sources: I have not yet begun to fight. Introduction: