"assuming that the meaning of the whole of the sum of meanings of the parts" >>> "assuming that the meaning of the whole is the sum of the meanings of the parts"
Privately requesting that would be more respectful. When you state publicly and repeatedly that you're intentionally excluding such and such, tu quoque on the etiquette charge mate.
TBH the "naming error" isn't persuasive because it comes across as somewhat arrogant. It's not really a counter-argument because my argument didn't place much weight on the fact that eared seals have "seal" in the taxonomic name. I don't consider taxonomic terms to have much weight here. For example, dolphins are known as "toothed whales" in taxonomy, but nobody would call them whales. Rather, my argument was largely based on my sources. The strongest argument for Con I could think of was that there exists, to a certain extent, the usage of "seal" in the sense of referring exclusively to true seals or fur seals as opposed to sea lions despite the fact that this sense of the word doesn't appear in most dictionaries. That sense of the word may be implied by the context, and it's perhaps especially implied when discussing the two together in the same sentence. The wording of the resolution itself arguably implies this sense of the word.
"seal-variants with sea lions being a different third-group who share enough with 'fur seals' to be considered closer to them than the true seals to have the family of the " - Was something supposed to be after that?
The rules state that "Pro shall not use round 2 to rebut or otherwise respond to Con's round 2 arguments." This was an error. It should read as "Con shall not use round 2 to rebut or otherwise respond to Pro's round 2 arguments." It's functionally an inconequential error because the content restriction was implied by the prior statement.
FYI what happened here was Pro accepted debate and said that he knew that I would be arguing against the topic before I posted arguments. After seeing my arguments, Pro then claimed that he didn't know that I would be arguing against the topic and requested a cancel. I didn't consent to cancel because I didn't believe Pro. What strikes me as more likely is that Pro knew I would be arguing against the topic and then lied about it to try to get a cancel after he saw how good my arguments were.
He said he was aware that I was arguing against the topic before I posted my arguments. Had he responded differently then I would have agreed to a cancel.
First example number: 0.0r1 - A logically impossible number as it supposes a point beyond infinity.
Second example number: 0r1 - A logically possible number as it doesn't suppose a point beyond infinity. The "1" here is where infinity begins, not beyond a supposed end.
Re: Infinitesimals - There is no number so close to 0 such that you can't divide it by 2 and have a new number smaller still. Therefore, there is no closest number to 0. Is that not what an infinitesimal supposedly is? Or rather, is that not what 0.0r1 supposedly is? A number infinitely close to 0 but not at 0? Such a number isn't logically possible because it's existence isn't consistent with the foregoing reasoning excluding such a number's existence.
Re: "The question" - This is a loaded question. The question contains the assumption that "one direction [... is] more logical than the other". That assumption is false.
There's no remainder. It converges at infinity. Any theoretical remainder would have to be infinitesimal, but the possibility of such a remainder is eliminated by the logical impossibility of infitesimals.
My expectations are more angry nonsense and misrepresentations. I doubt you'll disappoint me.
Why don't you put it in the next round and see what happens.
Nope, saw that part, but you went with the one at the top of the page. You probably missed it or you would have mentioned it in the debate.
You will lose.
Pro set the bait with the usual and ordinary meaning >> Pro baited with the usual and ordinary meaning
"assuming that the meaning of the whole of the sum of meanings of the parts" >>> "assuming that the meaning of the whole is the sum of the meanings of the parts"
Ahahahaha
You'll never get the last word.
Haha. Is that all you got?
Privately requesting that would be more respectful. When you state publicly and repeatedly that you're intentionally excluding such and such, tu quoque on the etiquette charge mate.
I'd take what he says with a grain of salt. He does it to everybody. I don't think it's personal.
You have no rights which I am bound to respect.
You're quite good at convincing yourself of things that aren't so.
TBH the "naming error" isn't persuasive because it comes across as somewhat arrogant. It's not really a counter-argument because my argument didn't place much weight on the fact that eared seals have "seal" in the taxonomic name. I don't consider taxonomic terms to have much weight here. For example, dolphins are known as "toothed whales" in taxonomy, but nobody would call them whales. Rather, my argument was largely based on my sources. The strongest argument for Con I could think of was that there exists, to a certain extent, the usage of "seal" in the sense of referring exclusively to true seals or fur seals as opposed to sea lions despite the fact that this sense of the word doesn't appear in most dictionaries. That sense of the word may be implied by the context, and it's perhaps especially implied when discussing the two together in the same sentence. The wording of the resolution itself arguably implies this sense of the word.
You may view the voting rules here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
"seal-variants with sea lions being a different third-group who share enough with 'fur seals' to be considered closer to them than the true seals to have the family of the " - Was something supposed to be after that?
The rules state that "Pro shall not use round 2 to rebut or otherwise respond to Con's round 2 arguments." This was an error. It should read as "Con shall not use round 2 to rebut or otherwise respond to Pro's round 2 arguments." It's functionally an inconequential error because the content restriction was implied by the prior statement.
You're wylted?
You'd be surprised how many people think that sea lions are not seals.
Request denied. Vote incoming.
Not this one
Tempting
Didn't read. Didn't care.
Didn't read. Didn't care.
Keep whining.
Don't care.
Whether you lied or made mistake, my decision would be the same. I don't care about winning.
I don't believe you. My language was clear. So was yours.
FYI what happened here was Pro accepted debate and said that he knew that I would be arguing against the topic before I posted arguments. After seeing my arguments, Pro then claimed that he didn't know that I would be arguing against the topic and requested a cancel. I didn't consent to cancel because I didn't believe Pro. What strikes me as more likely is that Pro knew I would be arguing against the topic and then lied about it to try to get a cancel after he saw how good my arguments were.
"Completely on me" right? Your reasoning is clearly flawed.
He said he was aware that I was arguing against the topic before I posted my arguments. Had he responded differently then I would have agreed to a cancel.
He says he didn't know he was Pro until I posted my arguments. You believe him? I don't.
Death23
Added: 4 days ago
Are you aware that I am arguing against the topic?
Our_Boat_is_Right
Added: 4 days ago
Yes, I am.
I don't care what you think.
And wah, wah, wah.
First example number: 0.0r1 - A logically impossible number as it supposes a point beyond infinity.
Second example number: 0r1 - A logically possible number as it doesn't suppose a point beyond infinity. The "1" here is where infinity begins, not beyond a supposed end.
If we continue he pays for his mistake. If we cancel, I pay for his.
I do not consent to canceling the debate.
Once I post my arguments publicly I've shown my hand. The cat's out of the bag.
Is the resolution for childhood vaccines only? It's worded broadly and would seem to encompass adult vaccines as well (e.g. annual flu vaccine).
So,
When I asked "Are you aware that I am arguing against the topic?" and you said "Yes, I am."; What was unclear there?
Re: Infinitesimals - There is no number so close to 0 such that you can't divide it by 2 and have a new number smaller still. Therefore, there is no closest number to 0. Is that not what an infinitesimal supposedly is? Or rather, is that not what 0.0r1 supposedly is? A number infinitely close to 0 but not at 0? Such a number isn't logically possible because it's existence isn't consistent with the foregoing reasoning excluding such a number's existence.
Re: "The question" - This is a loaded question. The question contains the assumption that "one direction [... is] more logical than the other". That assumption is false.
Which position are you referring to?
I don't think that.
It's not. Why does that matter?
There's no remainder. It converges at infinity. Any theoretical remainder would have to be infinitesimal, but the possibility of such a remainder is eliminated by the logical impossibility of infitesimals.
Are you aware that I am arguing against the topic?
Those aren't infinitesimals.
Infinitesimals can't exist. You're familiar enough with the arguments to know that.
0.9r + 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 = 1.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000009999999r = 1.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
Yeah, right.