100% agree with you. These arguments too often turn into a battle of attrition where unsuspecting newbies get barraged by a wall of semantics and obsession of quantity at all costs. And if you don't respond to a single point, they (not necessarily Franklin, many of the regulars and even i for a while tried to adapt to that status quo) will blast it in bold the next round as a dropped point. Its why i decided to stick with the forum.
On a side note, as an observer i notice it would have been easy to just defend against his 3 premises without tackling every word. 1. Economy great, we were spiraling and he saved it. 2. Healthcare good. Not great, but better than before. And we arent asking if Obama was perfect. I dont recall 3 but whatever. If you prove it was good well enough, you don't have to prove why it isn't bad.
But i know first hand going counterpoint line by line is hard to resist when you read through some of the bullshit in those walls. I don't have that discipline, so like i said, i stick to forums and comments.
Im sure verbal DoS attacks are some sort of fallacy, i might start voting against them citing this reason... but you said the magic word, "conceed." Still considering if i should call it coersion or respect the power of that word.
Agnosticism imo is an invalid position. If im unsure of his existence, then i currently do not believe in his existence. If not sure if i can score a goal, than at the moment i do not know that i can score that goal. Its a yes or no question, there is no in between.
Zeus can take many physical forms, anything from animals to light. You can go to mount opympus and he can be there, and you will never know.
If absense of evidence is evidence of absence, does that mean black holes and those wierd fish near hydrothermal vents didnt exist before we found the evidence? No, they exist independent of our evidence. Absense of evidence is evidence of absense of evidence, and nothing else.
Even in fantasy lands where fairies exist, they are rarely seen by people and actively avoid them. Do we know what kind of skeletons they leave or do they simple disintegrate into pixie dust? Perhaps they were visitors from another dimention and exist elsewhere in the universe. Its all guesswork, but the point is *proving* nonexistence is impossible. You can declare something doesnt exist in a specific point of space, like between earth and venus, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist elsewhere.
Your argument about "no evidence of fairies means ita silly to believe in them" is completely opposite of "if you cant disprove god you must believe in him." I mean i cant disprove any god exists, whether its the christian god or the hindu gods. Should i believe in all of them at once even tho only 1 god and many gods is completely contradictory? You cant disprove fairies, so you must believe in fairies! That is very silly.
In case you didnt realize, zeus is a god and not usually in physical form. He has entered places in the form of literally a stream of light. If he doesnt want to be seen by a mortal like you, he wont.
Even if we take a step away from divine beings. Can you prove that elves or fairies dont exist?
Of course he is still a scientist. Three question is if someone is a scientist, not when are they scientists. I don't see the relevance.
Can you answer my questions requesting you to explain what you think a scientist does? And my question regarding einstein; would he be considered a scientist if he had simple been a fan of new discoveries without even attempting to formulate new ideas?
I dont mind sharing BoP, but that doesnt necessitate an absolute statement. Just like with "being scientist", physicians can also be artists, that doesnt mean physicians ARE artists.
As for the dictionary, i was hoping to hear your wifes english major opinion. The definition of "person learned of science" is obviously inadequate. Mere knowledge of math and physics didnt make einstein a scientist, his work to uncover further discoveries is what made him a scientist.
How would you define a scientist in your own words? Is the primary quality knowledge of past theories, or working on new ones?
What of dictionaries failure in objective definitions of words like literally, or failure in defining career specific terms like "theory" or apparently the careers themselves.
I think the differences in job description (seeking new knowledge vs applying known knowledge) speaks for themselved.
Just wanted to clarify my position, this will be my last comment on your vote unless you want to pm me. Thank you for voting.
Im confused. Doctors do not make medical decisions ever. It was in the early days of modern medicine that doctors decided on, and administered treatments, not only without consent, but often without the patients knowledge. Informed concent is a standard of practice in modern medicine and in almost every case the parent makes the decisions for a child.
In very extreme situations medical staff can seek a court order to overrule parents who are endangering a child unreasonably, but thats a power the courts can grant them, not something they can just do at will.
What doctors do do is inform the responsible party of the facts regarding to condition, treatment, consequences, and sideeffects. Then the responsible party (assuming free of suspicon of elder/child/spousal abuse) can make a decision regarding the care of themselves or whoever they are representing.
I continued to insist on my assertion as a matter of fact. I never replied to that statement in your specific context. Although as i said before, i wasn't against a debate on the subject, i simply wanted to clarify our positions more first.
I would also like to clarify, as i did in the first comment. This debate was not at my request. We simply disagreed in a comments section and then i found this challenge in my notifications. I do not know why @ragnar phrased it that way.
Pro:
“A doctor who does not conduct experiments, would quickly find themselves in malpractice lawsuits for the various injuries they would inflict by giving treatments for the wrong ailments. It is necessary for any practicing modern physician to be a scientist.”
Con
"A doctor who conducts experiments would find himself without a job. Giving unverified treatments, especially ones that fail, will not only land him in court, it will cost him his license. The doctor is (hopefully) not trying to find out how the disease works, or even new ways to cure it. The doctor should be carrying out the best cure that is known to work, to get you better with minimal consequences."
Personal attacks need not be singular. By conflating liberal with retard you are essentially calling each and every liberal a retard. Rather then attacking their veliefs, you are personally attacking a large group of people, and thus commiting an ad hominem.
Its also dismissive of people not based on arguments, thus intellectually dishonest and an example of some pathetic conduct.
Virtuoso caught madman in a suprise twist.
I think madman had a chance if he dug in on the difference between teaching and mentioning.
Teaching creation: many people believe that the world was made by a creator. Here are the proofs for it. Here are the arguments in favor. Here are famous thinkers who held or helped form this belief. Etc.
Mentioning: at one point people believed x, but then reason provided better answers. the end. Now lets turn to the actual lesson: the big bang in actual detail.
Subtraction is a valid operation.
I did 10x - x = 10x -x in the proper order
10x is the ...9990.0
X is ....999.0
10x - x was equal to ...9990.0 (aka 10x) - ...999.0 (aka x)
It was all in the proper order.
Does that negate your entire vote? And how do i bring this comment to the proper mods attention if it does?
Im unsure of that conclusion, but i am sure about your error. So i will be arguing a bit of devils advocate based of my previous mindset.
If one were to try to manually calculate all the 9s... even given infinite time no they will never reach that final 9 that makes it a one...
But the number itself is not growing 1 number at a time. It is in its entirety now. All infinite 9s are there inside of its definition. And *at the point of infinity*, when all infinity of that number is valued at once. It is equal to 1.
Its like an asymptotes in math class. It approaches the line, but never reaches the line as far as you can see... but if you extend that line to infinity, it does meet the line at that infinite point.
Red pill time.
The issue isnt whether its a 9, a 1, or a 0. The issue is with the concept of "last". There is no "last". When faced with an infinity, last has no meaning.
There is no last. There is no after. Thats the reality of infinity. Your sentences dont make any sense in the context of infinity.
The only way to negate this concept is to show how mathematically absurd it is with similar examples, as i tried.
There is no after the infinity. The most you can say is "at the point of infinity". Before that point 0.999... "approaches" 1, but the number isnt actually changing with time or approaching anything. If you take the number as a whole, "at the point of infinity" it supposedly becomes 1.
Im not sure of that conclusion, but i am sure of your "after infinity" flaw. 0.999...x does not exist, there is no "x", it will always be "..." with no end. Whether the x is another 9 or a different number, there is no final digit. Ever. Your notation doesnt make sense.
There is no "after" with infinity. There will be 9s, none of them are after the infinity. There will never be a 1, or any number not part of the repeating pattern.
The problem with your logic is your insistence on an "after the infinity". Thats a ludicrous statement by itself.
Last time we pursued this discussion, you refused to agree to disagree. I was convinced by a math argument that may or may not have been valid, but your logical argument is illogical to me. 0.000...1 is nonsensical because you are trying to put a 1 after infinite zeros.... except there is no after infinity.... i dont want to force a conversation that will end in a rage quit, and i have no interest in a circular conversation. If it becomes clear neither of us is convincing the other, and we've heard all of each others arguments, lets agree to disagree.
Likewise, there is no 9 at the end of 999..., there are always more 9s after that one. There will.never however be a different number once the ... kicks in
3*0.333..., according to my proposition, is incalculable because you are trying to calculate a number with infinite digits. You can end an equation with 0.333..., but you cant start a computation with it. Thats what i was trying to demonstrate.
But your proofs are not killer, are quite illogical. I cant understand how you can label a proof as "killer" when it hasn't convinced anyone.
Your argument about 0.333... is undercut by your claim that you cant start at 1 and get to 0.999..., because you can start at 1/3 and end at 0.333... as well as the reverse. You simply misunderstand infinity.
I doubt i will convince you, we can agree to disagree... but why would i use your "killer" proofs when they never worked for you in your debates?
The point i was trying to make is you cant calculate with these ludacris numbers. You can get them in a conclusion if you start with normal numbers like 1/3, but you can continue the maths, or start the maths with infinite digit incalculable numbers. But if you divide 1 by 3, you will forever get another 3 to the end of the number. There will never be a 4, no 5, no 05. Those dont even make any sense at all.
You may be right with this number, but i initially simply assumed it was just a number. Many debates here go crazy with formalities, i just want to dive in :)
You are not just talking about current events in usa, because you referenced historic violence going back to europe. Your topic tries to demonize white people in general.
My question remains. If a few terrorist examples can label a whole race or ethnicity as terrorists, who isnt a terrorist?
Im confused by your use of the term truism. Based off the definition, you are saying my position is obvious and that you agree with me. That will make it difficult for you to debate me. It is also contrary to the contrary to the consensus that 0.999... does equal to 1.
Let me see if i understand you.
Because a group of white people were labeled (by mostly other white people) to be one of many terrorist groups, therefore white people in general are terrorists?
But terrorist groups exist in all parts of the world, therefore arent all people terrorists?
And if your statement about white people is true for all people... what's the point?
Unfortunately your research is hearsay, and you refuse to provide evidence, as evident by your exchange with pressF4.
You are confident in your "research" about the same as your flat earther, holocaust denier, or any other conspiracy theory under the sun. Perhaps one day you will open your eyes, til then your hopeless.
Speaking of learning how to take an L, you should take your own advise. Your so convinced you are correct before the debate even starts you dont realize how you fail to support your claims.
As to the number in between them, that is true as well.
Once you get to rational numbers (decimals), any 2 numbers have an infinite number of numbers between.
1 and 2 have 1.1, 1.2, 1.2
1.1 and 1.2 have 1.11, 1.12, 1.13
1.12 and 1.13 have 1.111, 1.112, 1.113 and so on.
If all numbers must have an infinite number of numbers between them. This leads to the conclusion that if there are no numbers between them, there is no difference between them.
I promise not to reignite a full debate, but curious. You said we abuse the definition of infinity but what definition of infinity are you using?
100% agree with you. These arguments too often turn into a battle of attrition where unsuspecting newbies get barraged by a wall of semantics and obsession of quantity at all costs. And if you don't respond to a single point, they (not necessarily Franklin, many of the regulars and even i for a while tried to adapt to that status quo) will blast it in bold the next round as a dropped point. Its why i decided to stick with the forum.
On a side note, as an observer i notice it would have been easy to just defend against his 3 premises without tackling every word. 1. Economy great, we were spiraling and he saved it. 2. Healthcare good. Not great, but better than before. And we arent asking if Obama was perfect. I dont recall 3 but whatever. If you prove it was good well enough, you don't have to prove why it isn't bad.
But i know first hand going counterpoint line by line is hard to resist when you read through some of the bullshit in those walls. I don't have that discipline, so like i said, i stick to forums and comments.
Im sure verbal DoS attacks are some sort of fallacy, i might start voting against them citing this reason... but you said the magic word, "conceed." Still considering if i should call it coersion or respect the power of that word.
Agnosticism imo is an invalid position. If im unsure of his existence, then i currently do not believe in his existence. If not sure if i can score a goal, than at the moment i do not know that i can score that goal. Its a yes or no question, there is no in between.
Zeus can take many physical forms, anything from animals to light. You can go to mount opympus and he can be there, and you will never know.
If absense of evidence is evidence of absence, does that mean black holes and those wierd fish near hydrothermal vents didnt exist before we found the evidence? No, they exist independent of our evidence. Absense of evidence is evidence of absense of evidence, and nothing else.
Even in fantasy lands where fairies exist, they are rarely seen by people and actively avoid them. Do we know what kind of skeletons they leave or do they simple disintegrate into pixie dust? Perhaps they were visitors from another dimention and exist elsewhere in the universe. Its all guesswork, but the point is *proving* nonexistence is impossible. You can declare something doesnt exist in a specific point of space, like between earth and venus, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist elsewhere.
Your argument about "no evidence of fairies means ita silly to believe in them" is completely opposite of "if you cant disprove god you must believe in him." I mean i cant disprove any god exists, whether its the christian god or the hindu gods. Should i believe in all of them at once even tho only 1 god and many gods is completely contradictory? You cant disprove fairies, so you must believe in fairies! That is very silly.
In case you didnt realize, zeus is a god and not usually in physical form. He has entered places in the form of literally a stream of light. If he doesnt want to be seen by a mortal like you, he wont.
Even if we take a step away from divine beings. Can you prove that elves or fairies dont exist?
Can you prove that Zeus doesn't exist?
Of course he is still a scientist. Three question is if someone is a scientist, not when are they scientists. I don't see the relevance.
Can you answer my questions requesting you to explain what you think a scientist does? And my question regarding einstein; would he be considered a scientist if he had simple been a fan of new discoveries without even attempting to formulate new ideas?
If einstein simply enjoyed learning new science discoveries and made no contributions of his own, would he be a scientist? Or simply a science nerd?
Despite being clearly "learned in a science"
I dont mind sharing BoP, but that doesnt necessitate an absolute statement. Just like with "being scientist", physicians can also be artists, that doesnt mean physicians ARE artists.
As for the dictionary, i was hoping to hear your wifes english major opinion. The definition of "person learned of science" is obviously inadequate. Mere knowledge of math and physics didnt make einstein a scientist, his work to uncover further discoveries is what made him a scientist.
How would you define a scientist in your own words? Is the primary quality knowledge of past theories, or working on new ones?
What of dictionaries failure in objective definitions of words like literally, or failure in defining career specific terms like "theory" or apparently the careers themselves.
I think the differences in job description (seeking new knowledge vs applying known knowledge) speaks for themselved.
Just wanted to clarify my position, this will be my last comment on your vote unless you want to pm me. Thank you for voting.
At no point did i say *no physician* can be a scientist. ANYONE CAN CONDUCT RESEARCH as a hobby and be a scientist.
If a patent clerk does independent research in his free time, he is a scientist. That does not make all parent clerks scientists.
The only absolute statement was on pro's side. This is a major confusion that i dont think was caused by my word choice.
Also, thank you to all voters, including dynamic squid.
At least the simplest non troll, non FF, non super low word limit debate.
I wonder why this isnt getting more votes. This is probably the most simple and easy to follow debate on the site. Very few premises or moving parts.
Im confused. Doctors do not make medical decisions ever. It was in the early days of modern medicine that doctors decided on, and administered treatments, not only without consent, but often without the patients knowledge. Informed concent is a standard of practice in modern medicine and in almost every case the parent makes the decisions for a child.
In very extreme situations medical staff can seek a court order to overrule parents who are endangering a child unreasonably, but thats a power the courts can grant them, not something they can just do at will.
What doctors do do is inform the responsible party of the facts regarding to condition, treatment, consequences, and sideeffects. Then the responsible party (assuming free of suspicon of elder/child/spousal abuse) can make a decision regarding the care of themselves or whoever they are representing.
I continued to insist on my assertion as a matter of fact. I never replied to that statement in your specific context. Although as i said before, i wasn't against a debate on the subject, i simply wanted to clarify our positions more first.
this quoted challenge for a debate is from you as i am not a former combat medic. Thus the debate is at your request.
I don't seem to have accepted or denied the request in the following post, instead trying to clear up any possible misconceptions.
I would also like to clarify, as i did in the first comment. This debate was not at my request. We simply disagreed in a comments section and then i found this challenge in my notifications. I do not know why @ragnar phrased it that way.
I would prefer the opportunity to define my own position. My response to your argument is not my actual argument.
A better comparison
Pro:
“A doctor who does not conduct experiments, would quickly find themselves in malpractice lawsuits for the various injuries they would inflict by giving treatments for the wrong ailments. It is necessary for any practicing modern physician to be a scientist.”
Con
"A doctor who conducts experiments would find himself without a job. Giving unverified treatments, especially ones that fail, will not only land him in court, it will cost him his license. The doctor is (hopefully) not trying to find out how the disease works, or even new ways to cure it. The doctor should be carrying out the best cure that is known to work, to get you better with minimal consequences."
Personal attacks need not be singular. By conflating liberal with retard you are essentially calling each and every liberal a retard. Rather then attacking their veliefs, you are personally attacking a large group of people, and thus commiting an ad hominem.
Its also dismissive of people not based on arguments, thus intellectually dishonest and an example of some pathetic conduct.
Tyvm. Good luck.
Thank you.
You keep repeating that like a mantra. I get that.
If they are related, they are not the necessarily the same, therefore why cant 1 of them be a social construct?
Can you connect the "they are related" back to the topic?
If sex is biological
And you admit gender is not the same
Then how do you conclude that gender must be biological?
Couldnt it be a social construct that is related to a biological feature, but not the same as it?
Virtuoso caught madman in a suprise twist.
I think madman had a chance if he dug in on the difference between teaching and mentioning.
Teaching creation: many people believe that the world was made by a creator. Here are the proofs for it. Here are the arguments in favor. Here are famous thinkers who held or helped form this belief. Etc.
Mentioning: at one point people believed x, but then reason provided better answers. the end. Now lets turn to the actual lesson: the big bang in actual detail.
Wow. Gonna take me a bit of time to sit down and digest that, but thanks, looks interesting.
Subtraction is a valid operation.
I did 10x - x = 10x -x in the proper order
10x is the ...9990.0
X is ....999.0
10x - x was equal to ...9990.0 (aka 10x) - ...999.0 (aka x)
It was all in the proper order.
Does that negate your entire vote? And how do i bring this comment to the proper mods attention if it does?
Im unsure of that conclusion, but i am sure about your error. So i will be arguing a bit of devils advocate based of my previous mindset.
If one were to try to manually calculate all the 9s... even given infinite time no they will never reach that final 9 that makes it a one...
But the number itself is not growing 1 number at a time. It is in its entirety now. All infinite 9s are there inside of its definition. And *at the point of infinity*, when all infinity of that number is valued at once. It is equal to 1.
Its like an asymptotes in math class. It approaches the line, but never reaches the line as far as you can see... but if you extend that line to infinity, it does meet the line at that infinite point.
Red pill time.
The issue isnt whether its a 9, a 1, or a 0. The issue is with the concept of "last". There is no "last". When faced with an infinity, last has no meaning.
There is no last. There is no after. Thats the reality of infinity. Your sentences dont make any sense in the context of infinity.
The only way to negate this concept is to show how mathematically absurd it is with similar examples, as i tried.
I dont understand what your referingto with the "just as" in that first sentence, but i think the key is in my last question.
Can there be a last, or an after, in an infinite series?
Does a series of infinite 9s have a "last" 9?
There is no after the infinity. The most you can say is "at the point of infinity". Before that point 0.999... "approaches" 1, but the number isnt actually changing with time or approaching anything. If you take the number as a whole, "at the point of infinity" it supposedly becomes 1.
Im not sure of that conclusion, but i am sure of your "after infinity" flaw. 0.999...x does not exist, there is no "x", it will always be "..." with no end. Whether the x is another 9 or a different number, there is no final digit. Ever. Your notation doesnt make sense.
There is no "after" with infinity. There will be 9s, none of them are after the infinity. There will never be a 1, or any number not part of the repeating pattern.
The problem with your logic is your insistence on an "after the infinity". Thats a ludicrous statement by itself.
Last time we pursued this discussion, you refused to agree to disagree. I was convinced by a math argument that may or may not have been valid, but your logical argument is illogical to me. 0.000...1 is nonsensical because you are trying to put a 1 after infinite zeros.... except there is no after infinity.... i dont want to force a conversation that will end in a rage quit, and i have no interest in a circular conversation. If it becomes clear neither of us is convincing the other, and we've heard all of each others arguments, lets agree to disagree.
Likewise, there is no 9 at the end of 999..., there are always more 9s after that one. There will.never however be a different number once the ... kicks in
3*0.333..., according to my proposition, is incalculable because you are trying to calculate a number with infinite digits. You can end an equation with 0.333..., but you cant start a computation with it. Thats what i was trying to demonstrate.
But your proofs are not killer, are quite illogical. I cant understand how you can label a proof as "killer" when it hasn't convinced anyone.
Your argument about 0.333... is undercut by your claim that you cant start at 1 and get to 0.999..., because you can start at 1/3 and end at 0.333... as well as the reverse. You simply misunderstand infinity.
I doubt i will convince you, we can agree to disagree... but why would i use your "killer" proofs when they never worked for you in your debates?
The point i was trying to make is you cant calculate with these ludacris numbers. You can get them in a conclusion if you start with normal numbers like 1/3, but you can continue the maths, or start the maths with infinite digit incalculable numbers. But if you divide 1 by 3, you will forever get another 3 to the end of the number. There will never be a 4, no 5, no 05. Those dont even make any sense at all.
Whats so hard about random chaos? 'Merica!
Schucks
I may be growing conflicted due to some follow up research. Can you elaborate on how that fact defeats my argument?
You may be right with this number, but i initially simply assumed it was just a number. Many debates here go crazy with formalities, i just want to dive in :)
You are not just talking about current events in usa, because you referenced historic violence going back to europe. Your topic tries to demonize white people in general.
My question remains. If a few terrorist examples can label a whole race or ethnicity as terrorists, who isnt a terrorist?
Perhaps. Once again this is an ongoing debate. Maybe towards the later rounds depending on my opponents perfornance.
That seems like something that may come up in the next round, ill save my answer til then :p
Double contrary, my bad. Im on mobile, forgive any typos and doubling :/
Yes 0.999... = 1 is the consensus.
Im confused by your use of the term truism. Based off the definition, you are saying my position is obvious and that you agree with me. That will make it difficult for you to debate me. It is also contrary to the contrary to the consensus that 0.999... does equal to 1.
I think its much better to see someone who adapts to new evidence and adjusts their conclusions. Accept and see what i found out this time :)
Let me see if i understand you.
Because a group of white people were labeled (by mostly other white people) to be one of many terrorist groups, therefore white people in general are terrorists?
But terrorist groups exist in all parts of the world, therefore arent all people terrorists?
And if your statement about white people is true for all people... what's the point?
Unfortunately your research is hearsay, and you refuse to provide evidence, as evident by your exchange with pressF4.
You are confident in your "research" about the same as your flat earther, holocaust denier, or any other conspiracy theory under the sun. Perhaps one day you will open your eyes, til then your hopeless.
Speaking of learning how to take an L, you should take your own advise. Your so convinced you are correct before the debate even starts you dont realize how you fail to support your claims.
As to the number in between them, that is true as well.
Once you get to rational numbers (decimals), any 2 numbers have an infinite number of numbers between.
1 and 2 have 1.1, 1.2, 1.2
1.1 and 1.2 have 1.11, 1.12, 1.13
1.12 and 1.13 have 1.111, 1.112, 1.113 and so on.
If all numbers must have an infinite number of numbers between them. This leads to the conclusion that if there are no numbers between them, there is no difference between them.