They're mostly BS cuz the cities shorten the yellow signal intervals to legally indefensible times in order to generate more revenue. You might win if you fight back, but hardly anyone ever does.
Your vote strikes me as insufficient on the award of arguments points. It only references round 1 arguments. The only comment on Con's arguments were "and CON directly addresses the debate resolution at the end of round two with" and "I find these arguments to be logically consistent as well as persuasive." Your rejection of Pro's arguments was based solely on your own arguments which did not appear in the debate. No reference to Con's arguments is found within your rejection of Pro's arguments.
Yes, provided that each incremental increase wasn't equal. In the beginning you may increase the shorter rock's height by 0.0000009 feet to make 4.99999909 feet tall, and next you may increase it by 0.00000009 to make it 4.999999099 feet, and so on. If you do this an infinite number of times you will end up with a rock that is 4.9999990999999999(repeating) feet tall or, expressed differently, as 4.9999991 feet tall.
Trial costs already discourage prosecution and public defenders are salaried state employees. Better representation for indigent defendants can be achieved more directly by hiring more public defenders and providing them with greater resources. The resolution only indirectly furthers the stated policy interests, but there is an unstated interest that is directly furthered by the resolution - Justice. It's unfair when an innocent defendant pays for a prosecutor's mistake. Query: Given all the injustice in the world - Why is this particular injustice important to you? Should the taxpayers have foot the $5 million legal bill for OJ's defense?
The round 2 quote you reference - this part - "we are quick to say the answer is an infinite set of zeros then a 1. ie .00000..infinity..somehow ends in a 1. But those zeroes go on for infinity. That singular "1" never appears." - He's not saying that there's a 1 at the "end". He's saying that it's a mistake to think that there's a 1 at the end.
What Pro actually argued was what Pro said. Pro's case was that 0.999r must be 1 because 1/3 = 0.333r and 2/3 = .666r and 1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3 = 1. It's a pretty weak case but it doesn't have anything to do with rounding. Con's attack on it was an obvious strawman. A better attack would have been something like "Pro's argument is based on the premises that 1/3 = 0.333r and 2/3 = 0.666r. These premises haven't been supported by Pro and I challenge them as unsubstantiated. The burden of proof is on Pro to show that these premises are true. If Pro has not met his burden, then Pro's argument fails."
Infinity isn't a number. It's an idea. By definition, infinity has no end. Your arguments about having to round (e.g. "0.9 *3 = 2.7
0.99 *3 = 2.97 So if one is to ever conclude that 3/3 = 0.9 recurring there is at some point a '3' that they are ignoring needs to be added on to the '7' in order to ever make this true. ") can be soundly rejected because they're not consistent with the idea of infinity. There's no "at some point". At what point? That point doesn't happen with an infinitely long sequence.
When you fail to respond to an argument, you drop the argument. You failed to respond to my round 4 arguments. Ergo, you dropped those arguments.
great topic! sounds like parents' rights vs the best interests of children. look forward to the arguments
Yeah I caught that. It took me a minute or so to figure it out though.
They're mostly BS cuz the cities shorten the yellow signal intervals to legally indefensible times in order to generate more revenue. You might win if you fight back, but hardly anyone ever does.
Why would anyone bother to report the votes?
5 rounds?
That's the position I take in this debate, but that doesn't that mean I believe it.
Your vote strikes me as insufficient on the award of arguments points. It only references round 1 arguments. The only comment on Con's arguments were "and CON directly addresses the debate resolution at the end of round two with" and "I find these arguments to be logically consistent as well as persuasive." Your rejection of Pro's arguments was based solely on your own arguments which did not appear in the debate. No reference to Con's arguments is found within your rejection of Pro's arguments.
New arguments on this topic here https://www.debateart.com/debates/146
Toodaloo
We'll see what happens.
Perhaps I'd like to play devil's advocate.
Yes, provided that each incremental increase wasn't equal. In the beginning you may increase the shorter rock's height by 0.0000009 feet to make 4.99999909 feet tall, and next you may increase it by 0.00000009 to make it 4.999999099 feet, and so on. If you do this an infinite number of times you will end up with a rock that is 4.9999990999999999(repeating) feet tall or, expressed differently, as 4.9999991 feet tall.
Trial costs already discourage prosecution and public defenders are salaried state employees. Better representation for indigent defendants can be achieved more directly by hiring more public defenders and providing them with greater resources. The resolution only indirectly furthers the stated policy interests, but there is an unstated interest that is directly furthered by the resolution - Justice. It's unfair when an innocent defendant pays for a prosecutor's mistake. Query: Given all the injustice in the world - Why is this particular injustice important to you? Should the taxpayers have foot the $5 million legal bill for OJ's defense?
The round 2 quote you reference - this part - "we are quick to say the answer is an infinite set of zeros then a 1. ie .00000..infinity..somehow ends in a 1. But those zeroes go on for infinity. That singular "1" never appears." - He's not saying that there's a 1 at the "end". He's saying that it's a mistake to think that there's a 1 at the end.
What Pro actually argued was what Pro said. Pro's case was that 0.999r must be 1 because 1/3 = 0.333r and 2/3 = .666r and 1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3 = 1. It's a pretty weak case but it doesn't have anything to do with rounding. Con's attack on it was an obvious strawman. A better attack would have been something like "Pro's argument is based on the premises that 1/3 = 0.333r and 2/3 = 0.666r. These premises haven't been supported by Pro and I challenge them as unsubstantiated. The burden of proof is on Pro to show that these premises are true. If Pro has not met his burden, then Pro's argument fails."
1 - 0.999(r) = 0.000(r) = 0 ergo 1 = 0.999(r)
There is no 0.000(r) and then a 1 after because there is no "after" with infinity. It doesn't work that way.
Infinity isn't a number. It's an idea. By definition, infinity has no end. Your arguments about having to round (e.g. "0.9 *3 = 2.7
0.99 *3 = 2.97 So if one is to ever conclude that 3/3 = 0.9 recurring there is at some point a '3' that they are ignoring needs to be added on to the '7' in order to ever make this true. ") can be soundly rejected because they're not consistent with the idea of infinity. There's no "at some point". At what point? That point doesn't happen with an infinitely long sequence.
y = x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^(repeating) = 2
x^y = 2
y = 2
x^2 = 2
x = sqrt(2)
;-)