YOU CHOOSE A TOPIC

By assuming that the Mandela Effect(as even an arbitrary idea ascending semantics), one must accept that there is a "right" reality and history in the first place, which cannot be proven.

I seem to have made a mistake on the Burden of Proof. It's shared, not on you.

Thanks for Bones on the clarifcation:

"The burden of proof lies on that who makes an assertion, but generally in debates on this cite, it's shared. Looking at your Mandela debate, you should prove why the effect is real, and janesix should rebutt and make their case."

- Bones

Sure, the subject seems simple enough.

Ok sorry, I didn't know that. Do you want to do the debate?

I need to give approval for a subject, but ok...

The Mandela Effect is real.

A shame, truly. There have been a few times I've seen votes and thought "Well. They're just wrong."

Fixed!

I said what you said but lowered it to 3 for example where .9999 becomes an awkward 2.999999 with a seven at the end. Such examples indeed proved it can't possibly be equal to the number that when multiplied by 3 makes 3.0000... however, voters here aren't all intelligent... So yeah

While I presume you're referring to 0.99r = 1, I did present other options as well.

It's not exactly "blind" if you expect people to present their debate resolution before you accept.

Ok... just solidified the fact that I cannot debate you on that topic.

Oh, and also I forgot to add:

When I first read the debate I mentioned, I literally sat down with post-it notes for about an hour trying to figure out what was happening lmao. That's how I figured out the rebuttal that I said in my previous comment.

Yes, I did indeed read through one of the debates from the quality debates section (the beginning arguments at least) and I disagree that it is equal to 1. The one with TNBinc, to be specific.

The mathematical proof that pro provided in said debate involved performing mathematical operations on a number that is infinite in length, and if you've seen the infamous "Proof That 1=2", the critical flaw of which is that you must divide by 0, it is much the same. Your opponent attempts to prove it with the following

x= 0.99r
10x=9.99r
10x=9+0.99r
9x=9
x=1

However, since x is equal to 0.99r, and 9x means you are multiplying it 9 times, what do we see when we multiply 9x9 or 0.99999x9? What we see is that the final digit, no matter how many decimals you add, must be 1. This obviously can't be the case with a number of infinite length, as there cannot meaningfully be an end to it, and thus we see a clear demonstration that the mathematics of real numbers aren't applicable.

Another way of thinking about it is that when you multiply 0.99x9 and get 8.91, you can get the result by multiplying 0.99x10-0.99 . When you multiply by 10, you effectively move the decimal point one number backwards, and all numbers are multiplied by 10 and become 1 denomination (I guess would be the word?) higher (a thousandth becomes a hundredth, a hundredth becomes a tenth, etc...) and in this case we get 9.9. Let's place a zero where the hundredth that's now a tenth used to be and get 9.90. Doing multiplication this way (multiplying by 9 by multiplying by 10 and then subtracting a multiple of 1) shows the problem: the 0.99 should always have one more non-zero number that is a decimal than the 9.9, which is impossible if the 9s continue infinitely for both values.

Also just the common sense approach. 1+0.999r does not equal 2. It doesn't have a value of 1, the number is lower than 1, it is literally a decimal between 0 & 1, and so for practical purposes we can round it, but it's not equal.

Of course, it would seem much of mathematics disagrees with me, but that's how I'd argue it, at least.

You're Con to it beinf equal to 1? I agree and have doscussed it in 2-3, iterations of the debate in my earlier days here (not earliest but close to it). Did you read them?

I know that 0.99r has been done, but the way that I would argue it is completely different than the way it was argued. Performing mathematical operations on inifities is irrational, which was what the proof rested on.

I mentioned unions despite how broad it was just to see your general confidence in the topic. Something like "all workers ought to be unionized" or something like that. I'd be pro in that scenario.

Maybe something like "COVID-19 Vaccines Shouldn't Be Patented" (like how Pfizer-BioNTech own the intellectual property of the vaccine).

You might have to be more specific about the Union's thing. And 0.99999r equals 1 has been done. I've read it, and I don't want to stress too much.

Maybe something about unions? 0.9999r equals 1?