you can't just change your vote to appease a debater. I won this debate if you actually understand what I did with the chaotic strategy of saying 'voter your emotions decide this' and how I turned it against Con's own premises. You think it was a tie, don't change that. It's about you and your interpretation. If you want to 'compare' arguments, compare ALL together not one by one.
Xmas eve is big thing for my family and I honestly don't care much about this debate. It's a fact and you're a psychopath if you're Con. It's that simple. Thanks for the reminder, but your wily waus probably won you the debate for all I know. I'll post last minute something.
I already knew they will lose. Even Lib Dems knew they would lose. When you say 'lose' you do know SNP has a very similar manifesto to Lib Dems right? so really all SNP seats would be Lib dem and Scotland used to be extremely Lib Dem and Labour-heavy until 3 elections ago.
I'm not complaining, SNP and Labour coalition was indeed viable had Labour won more seats. Lib Dems would have happily given Labour the edge this election offering a 3-way coalition but still not enough seats to beat the Conservatives.
Do you think because the last 9 of 0.999...9 happens to be the same digit as the others means it's more attainable than the '1' at the end of 0.000...1?
Just as much as the infinite 0's followed by a 1 that is the difference has the '1'.
So, I'd totally concede the '1' is never reached, and neither is the '9' because recurring numbers basically can't truly exist in their base. Base-10 doesn't allow for 1/3, it also doesn't allow for whatever sum you use to get 0.999... to ever be equal to 1 unless you abusively play around with algebra in a one-way-conversion pseudo trick that revolves around the fact that 0.9999.... is a fake value.
They study science but as Con says, only a minority are also scientists. This is actually less of a minority in Social Democracies, where the research is partially funded by the government as part of a research thing that goes along with public healthcare. It is actually mandatory in some lines of medical work; you need to spend time in a lab to genuinely get a job that doesn't involve lab work at times, to prove you fully understand it on a cellular level and besides it's a great Resumé/CV builder.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dud
you can say what you want, do not need to discuss such out-of-context nonsense quotes.
References:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3246/i-will-be-releasing-a-fanfiction-entitled-outta-chips?page=1&post_number=4
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3513/new-moderator-welcome
I said if you want to enjoy music that makes you feel depressed, you're setting yourself up for that.
Or ever
? I didn't say that on Discord
I promise you, this isn't like the diet debate. Expect a fight here, this is my niche.
That's a lie and you know it.
pls vote if you have the time.
The necessity of the being is literally a lie, because step 3 is a lie and 'necessary is in direct violation of premise 2 saying 'some'.
you can't just change your vote to appease a debater. I won this debate if you actually understand what I did with the chaotic strategy of saying 'voter your emotions decide this' and how I turned it against Con's own premises. You think it was a tie, don't change that. It's about you and your interpretation. If you want to 'compare' arguments, compare ALL together not one by one.
Xmas eve is big thing for my family and I honestly don't care much about this debate. It's a fact and you're a psychopath if you're Con. It's that simple. Thanks for the reminder, but your wily waus probably won you the debate for all I know. I'll post last minute something.
you wont let me accept because you are afraid. Unblock me!!!!!!!!!
Please can you inform your staff of their duties.
I reported the votes. This isn't FF. He posted R1 and R2.
I already knew they will lose. Even Lib Dems knew they would lose. When you say 'lose' you do know SNP has a very similar manifesto to Lib Dems right? so really all SNP seats would be Lib dem and Scotland used to be extremely Lib Dem and Labour-heavy until 3 elections ago.
I'm not complaining, SNP and Labour coalition was indeed viable had Labour won more seats. Lib Dems would have happily given Labour the edge this election offering a 3-way coalition but still not enough seats to beat the Conservatives.
It cancels itself out by unjustifiable sources vote being allocated.
Ask that question to Ragnar, you'll be asking who Blamonkey is about to ask. Just a streetsmart tip from a local Guru.
Thanks for the vote.
My final link failed it seems. Oh well.
'parents don't' and 'always love their child' link to different URLs intentionally.
Honestly, I don't have a clue how you became a moderator.
If this is a troll debate, you will be okay with everyone votebombing against me then? Just stop that bullshit.
Snitches can be scumbags but sometimes you have to be a scumbag to take down bigger scumbags, life is not so simple.
splatter that splits and shatters ** not 'that shatters'
whatever that line needed some grammatical tweaking, I admit.
This is not a troll debate.
Then you will admit that 0.999... never becomes 1.000... because it forever can never reach it.
Do you think because the last 9 of 0.999...9 happens to be the same digit as the others means it's more attainable than the '1' at the end of 0.000...1?
Just as much as the infinite 0's followed by a 1 that is the difference has the '1'.
So, I'd totally concede the '1' is never reached, and neither is the '9' because recurring numbers basically can't truly exist in their base. Base-10 doesn't allow for 1/3, it also doesn't allow for whatever sum you use to get 0.999... to ever be equal to 1 unless you abusively play around with algebra in a one-way-conversion pseudo trick that revolves around the fact that 0.9999.... is a fake value.
Then it never reaches the last 9.
So after the infinity it never adds on the 1 to become 1 from the 9, yes?
1 after infinite 0's is directly comparable to a 9 after infinite 9's. Just as unattainable.
To do this angle, why not point out that the '9' at the end of the 0.999... is no more or less attainable than the '1' at the end of the 0.000...1?
This blackmails the opponent to admit the difference is valid or that 0.999... is a fake value.
It's wrong. 3*0.333... never makes 1 because it needs a 'third' at the end of the 3's.
It has convinced people, just not on this website posting in public.
;) you are realising the truth
Agree 100%
ready to defend*
not read to defend
an audience* not and audience
They study science but as Con says, only a minority are also scientists. This is actually less of a minority in Social Democracies, where the research is partially funded by the government as part of a research thing that goes along with public healthcare. It is actually mandatory in some lines of medical work; you need to spend time in a lab to genuinely get a job that doesn't involve lab work at times, to prove you fully understand it on a cellular level and besides it's a great Resumé/CV builder.
I agree with this resolution.
He/she/they posts copy-pasted passages and usually types only 2 original sentences per debate Round.
;)
Fully justifying tied votes is a rule made long ago via the forum thread by bsh1
You are on the green/pro side but you disagree with it based on your short description on the Debates page.
Thanks for your vote.
I have unblocked you but 1 =/= 0.9999....
If you want to be in awe at her, check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SSB_480HEM
nvm I did it by searching.
I said 'r3' meaning 'r4' though.
I can link to the amv if you want.
So 2 in Round 3