In case you're so new that you didnt catch on, the colouring if the sides means youre pro-vaping, not against it. He may have waived to further trap you.
The last digit of pi is no less impossible to reach than the last 9 in 0.9recurring.
If you've never come across an infinite series that doesn't happen to be the same over and over again and think in any shape or form the number repeating being the same digit makes it remotely more possible of a value, you're simply too logically blinded to conprehend the truth.
0.9r9 is as ridiculous as the difference between it and 1.0r0, which is 0.0r1
If you say 0.0r1 never reaches the one, guess what? It never reaches the last of any decimal that's recurring at all.
Just because it's the same digit over and over again doesn't make it any less impossible to reach the final value on the series. Either 0.9r is not a number and can't equal 1, or it is a number and the last 9 is as reachable as the last 1 in the 0.0r1 difference.
If Russia or China went to the UN and said 'hello, after agreeing to lie for a while, we wanted to let you know that this actually is all bullshit and we and NASA lied all along please condemn US along with us' what would happen?
The Earth has never been proven to be round, only assumed to be so as long as you trust NASA and Roscosmos.
All experiments that conclude curvature of the Earth, assumed that the distortion across distance is due to the curvature and not due to a literal maximum of vision existing where a horizon squashes everything into the ground no matter what.
There's no elaboration, no such extension of anything.
They go from telling you it was columbus to telling you that an animated CGI graphics image of a round earth by a government agency that has top level security clearance and due to that is too secret to ever be audited properly, told you it was round.
They go from telling you 1/3 = 0.3r to telling you the same thing multiplied by 3, which was a lie in the first place.
Do you think typing 'no-one out of the experts agrees with you' makes it true? I am an expert in logical reasoning and mathematics myself but I guess any others who agree with me don't exist or are disqualified yeah?
What makes you being impressed with my self-declared intelligence in any shape or form the means to qualify or disqualify it? You have no superior or inferior objective weight than I do, in terms of your approval of my intelligence mattering vs my own approval of it. If only fools claim to know more than everyone else (it's 'than', not 'then' by the way), then you should not claim to know more than everyone who says that 0.9r doesn't equal 1, or else you're a hypocrite.
I didn't laugh at the concept in this entire chat, if anyone is being sardonic and laughing the other down, it's pressf4respect and yourself. Did you even read what I said is the actual value of 1/3 in decimal numbers? Did you actually read it and think?
When you say 'everyone else' you do realise this is an occasion where I'm on the side of what the majority believe, right?
If there is no 9 at the end of 0.9r but yet it is still considered to be a real value, as real and identical in quantity to 1, then it follows that the infinite number of 9s infinitely fail, again and again, to ever reach the value of 1.0r
The proof lies in comprehending a lie in mainstream mathematics that says that 1/3 = 0.3r which is an extreme lie that most children and adults are conned into believing and even marked down in exams for denying. The education system brainwashes us in many ways and I know why pressf4respect asked me what he did. I was too extremely intelligent to find school pleasurable and did loathe it with a passion both socially and academically as it made me look like an idiot for bringing many valid counters to things. There was a direct correlation between how open minded and wise my teacher was and how well we got along (meaning the lower end loathed me as a student).
As for what 1/3 actually is. There is no number, it doesn't exist. It would be 0.3r with a '0333r' at the end of it that itself has a '0333r' at the end of it over and over again, infinitely.
This is then why 0.9r which actually does have 0.3r as a third of its value ends up unequal to 1.0r that has no value at all as a third of its value other than that impossible-to-numerically-describe value that I just described.
Once you fully grasp this, you then will realise a lot else like for instance that 0.9r * 3 = 2/9r7 where the 2 was floating (from the 27) that adds onto the previous 9 before the 7 and zooms to the whole-number place. On the other hand, 1.0r*3.0r = 3.0r that blatantly is not the same number as that 2.9r7
since you both are struggling, Nemiroff less so, to understand my irrefutable proof, I will cease to engage you. I will simply repeat the sandwich BoP where to disprove one angle, you prove the other true and thus leave 0.9r = 1 an impossible scenario:
EITHER the '9' at the end of 0.9r(ecurring) is never ever reached and the '0' at the end of 1.0r is also never reached
OR the '1' at the end of 0.0r1 is reached and so the difference between the two is an actual value, as well as the '05' at the end of the midpoint 0.9r05 is also reached between 0.9r and 1.
If one is false for the reasons that my opponent stated, it then blackmails them to admit the other is true.
This is irrefutable, absolutely true logic that you cannot just say 'math proof > logical reasoning' without admitting that you're defective in logic, AKA basic IQ.
I do though. I understand them perfectly. Feel free to read the debate to understand why 0.9 recurring cannot equal 1 and why the idea that 1/3 = 0.3 recurring is actually wrong, because what is actually true is after all the 3's there's an imaginary third as a single digit at the end of it.
I know what an infinite series is. I sandwiched my opponent in both debates into an unwinnable position that 'numerically challenged' voting helped him win with, in terms of official 'win'.
You see, the voters struggled to grasp my very well laid out logic that:
EITHER the '9' at the end of 0.9r(ecurring) is never ever reached and that the '0' at the end of 1.0r is also never reached
OR the '1' at the end of 0.0r1 is reached, as well as the '05' at the end of the midpoint 0.9r05 is also reached between 0.9r and 1.
If one is false for the reasons that my opponent stated, it then blackmails them to admit the other is true. Either way around, I win the debate.
If you will read the debate, you'll see that they do not ever let you off for the 'robbery' if you are found to be lying about the rape... I don't understand why you even gave Pro the 'right' factor when I pointed out this major lie about framing being friendly to immunity-policy.
You are wrong, the girl doesn't get away with robbing the bank because I said it would be with layers of plea bargaining for more severe crimes. If it's as bad as robbing a bank, the immunity policy wouldn't apply, rather it applies to something like getting drunk or taking drugs.
Members are not permitted to vote until they have EITHER 2 unforfeited non-troll debates that have entered completion stage OR 100 forum posts.
Those are the minimum criteria to meet and were introduced to stop alt-abuse as well as stop dedicated trolls from ever getting to vote. Unfortunately, this isn't easy to implement in the coding (so you see the vote button and waste effort voting that won't help you get to vote at all).
If you use those arguments, I'll most likely vote for you if you explain them correctly. It's irrefutable proof against the bullshit of Pro but I can't guarantee Pro won't argue you.
If youre curious about proof against this, look at death23's debates and search for ones against me. Note that I lost those debates. The people struggle to grap the irrefutable proof.
Supadudz is a very good rapper when he wants to be, he's a tougher opponent in my opinion than you in direct battles because he knows puns and disses that the masses like.
Don't just underestimate him, for all we know waterphoenix is a Type1 alt, which will mean this is immensely tough as Supadudz's weakness is rhyme scheme while type1's weakness is flow and relevant disses. the two will even each other's weaknesses out with their fortes.
Don't just straight up talk them out of the arena, let's put on a good show.
Please, this is going to be a really serious debate for me both because:
1) the topic being a really passionately spoken new-age-rightwing-libertarian propaganda thing that I loathe the influence of and got Trump elected amongst much else in the world (Brexit etc).
2) I am finally starting to care a lot about debating, rather than just 'winning' in itself (though winning ironically will now, in output, be better rewarded to me vs effort put in). I am putting full effort in as is my opponent I assume and it would be best if we let both debaters battle it out with our own wits and ideas, not anything in the comments or tailored to the debate other than what's already available on the Internet and such.
Thanks in advance for your interest in the debate, it is indeed one of those highly emotional ones no matter which side you support. Keep your eye out and you'll be entertained (and informed).
no we don't. If god exists then god, and by extension everything god 'assigned to us' as a role or destination in life, are all themselves without any real purpose or destination.
god is as meaningless as the atheist's universe, neither more nor less.
THEY DONT GIVE YOU IMMUNITY IF YOU ROB A FUCKING BANK, IT IS PROPORTIONATE TO THE CRIME! I TELL THIS THROUGHOUT!!!!!!!
thanks in advance!
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1674/meep-voting-policies-2
The MEEP says OR, why is he not allowed to vote with 100 forum posts? Please apologise and let him vote again with same rfd.
He had 100 forum posts, apologise and put it up right now.
Same to you "PressF4"
In case you're so new that you didnt catch on, the colouring if the sides means youre pro-vaping, not against it. He may have waived to further trap you.
The last digit of pi is no less impossible to reach than the last 9 in 0.9recurring.
If you've never come across an infinite series that doesn't happen to be the same over and over again and think in any shape or form the number repeating being the same digit makes it remotely more possible of a value, you're simply too logically blinded to conprehend the truth.
0.9r9 is as ridiculous as the difference between it and 1.0r0, which is 0.0r1
Don't you see?
If you say 0.0r1 never reaches the one, guess what? It never reaches the last of any decimal that's recurring at all.
Just because it's the same digit over and over again doesn't make it any less impossible to reach the final value on the series. Either 0.9r is not a number and can't equal 1, or it is a number and the last 9 is as reachable as the last 1 in the 0.0r1 difference.
0.0r1 * 0.0r1 = 0.0r1
pretty simple for someone who is good at math.
Why not just say y = 0 you ask?
answer is because you don't seem to understand that 0 =/= 0.0r1
:)
Math doesn't lie?
1 - 0.999... = X
1 - 1 = Y
Y * X = 0
X * X = 0.0r1
Y * Y = 0
Y / X = 0
X / Y = cannot divide by zero
Y / Y = cannot divide by zero
X / X = 1
:) I can do this all day, want to stop the algebra mechanics? I will run rings around you, of course math can lie just as much as tell the truth.
If Russia or China went to the UN and said 'hello, after agreeing to lie for a while, we wanted to let you know that this actually is all bullshit and we and NASA lied all along please condemn US along with us' what would happen?
Now I laughed, that felt good.
10x method shows the bullshit of 0.9r = 1
9.anything clearly isn't 10.0r LOL
The Earth has never been proven to be round, only assumed to be so as long as you trust NASA and Roscosmos.
All experiments that conclude curvature of the Earth, assumed that the distortion across distance is due to the curvature and not due to a literal maximum of vision existing where a horizon squashes everything into the ground no matter what.
No, they didn't, they came up with it but didn't prove it.
There's no elaboration, no such extension of anything.
They go from telling you it was columbus to telling you that an animated CGI graphics image of a round earth by a government agency that has top level security clearance and due to that is too secret to ever be audited properly, told you it was round.
They go from telling you 1/3 = 0.3r to telling you the same thing multiplied by 3, which was a lie in the first place.
It is not a conspiracy, it is a lie for convenience.
Do you think typing 'no-one out of the experts agrees with you' makes it true? I am an expert in logical reasoning and mathematics myself but I guess any others who agree with me don't exist or are disqualified yeah?
What makes you being impressed with my self-declared intelligence in any shape or form the means to qualify or disqualify it? You have no superior or inferior objective weight than I do, in terms of your approval of my intelligence mattering vs my own approval of it. If only fools claim to know more than everyone else (it's 'than', not 'then' by the way), then you should not claim to know more than everyone who says that 0.9r doesn't equal 1, or else you're a hypocrite.
I didn't laugh at the concept in this entire chat, if anyone is being sardonic and laughing the other down, it's pressf4respect and yourself. Did you even read what I said is the actual value of 1/3 in decimal numbers? Did you actually read it and think?
When you say 'everyone else' you do realise this is an occasion where I'm on the side of what the majority believe, right?
If there is no 9 at the end of 0.9r but yet it is still considered to be a real value, as real and identical in quantity to 1, then it follows that the infinite number of 9s infinitely fail, again and again, to ever reach the value of 1.0r
The proof lies in comprehending a lie in mainstream mathematics that says that 1/3 = 0.3r which is an extreme lie that most children and adults are conned into believing and even marked down in exams for denying. The education system brainwashes us in many ways and I know why pressf4respect asked me what he did. I was too extremely intelligent to find school pleasurable and did loathe it with a passion both socially and academically as it made me look like an idiot for bringing many valid counters to things. There was a direct correlation between how open minded and wise my teacher was and how well we got along (meaning the lower end loathed me as a student).
As for what 1/3 actually is. There is no number, it doesn't exist. It would be 0.3r with a '0333r' at the end of it that itself has a '0333r' at the end of it over and over again, infinitely.
This is then why 0.9r which actually does have 0.3r as a third of its value ends up unequal to 1.0r that has no value at all as a third of its value other than that impossible-to-numerically-describe value that I just described.
Once you fully grasp this, you then will realise a lot else like for instance that 0.9r * 3 = 2/9r7 where the 2 was floating (from the 27) that adds onto the previous 9 before the 7 and zooms to the whole-number place. On the other hand, 1.0r*3.0r = 3.0r that blatantly is not the same number as that 2.9r7
since you both are struggling, Nemiroff less so, to understand my irrefutable proof, I will cease to engage you. I will simply repeat the sandwich BoP where to disprove one angle, you prove the other true and thus leave 0.9r = 1 an impossible scenario:
EITHER the '9' at the end of 0.9r(ecurring) is never ever reached and the '0' at the end of 1.0r is also never reached
OR the '1' at the end of 0.0r1 is reached and so the difference between the two is an actual value, as well as the '05' at the end of the midpoint 0.9r05 is also reached between 0.9r and 1.
If one is false for the reasons that my opponent stated, it then blackmails them to admit the other is true.
This is irrefutable, absolutely true logic that you cannot just say 'math proof > logical reasoning' without admitting that you're defective in logic, AKA basic IQ.
I do though. I understand them perfectly. Feel free to read the debate to understand why 0.9 recurring cannot equal 1 and why the idea that 1/3 = 0.3 recurring is actually wrong, because what is actually true is after all the 3's there's an imaginary third as a single digit at the end of it.
I know what an infinite series is. I sandwiched my opponent in both debates into an unwinnable position that 'numerically challenged' voting helped him win with, in terms of official 'win'.
You see, the voters struggled to grasp my very well laid out logic that:
EITHER the '9' at the end of 0.9r(ecurring) is never ever reached and that the '0' at the end of 1.0r is also never reached
OR the '1' at the end of 0.0r1 is reached, as well as the '05' at the end of the midpoint 0.9r05 is also reached between 0.9r and 1.
If one is false for the reasons that my opponent stated, it then blackmails them to admit the other is true. Either way around, I win the debate.
Do you ask every member to reveal IRL achievements that would help you to narrow them down?
Are you trying to ask only me that one question because you want me to feel bad when your highest level of education is high school?
Stop worrying about others, get busy judging yourself and improving yourself.
Get over your obsession with me and stalk someone else.
If you will read the debate, you'll see that they do not ever let you off for the 'robbery' if you are found to be lying about the rape... I don't understand why you even gave Pro the 'right' factor when I pointed out this major lie about framing being friendly to immunity-policy.
If you changed robbing a bank to taking drugs, your RFD is still too Pro-friendly.
You are wrong, the girl doesn't get away with robbing the bank because I said it would be with layers of plea bargaining for more severe crimes. If it's as bad as robbing a bank, the immunity policy wouldn't apply, rather it applies to something like getting drunk or taking drugs.
We should have explained that line before posting, let's post it Round 2 because at the moment it's a confusing line.
The blood line refers to you drinking the blood but Gatorade infecting it as it was in his bloodstream.
Members are not permitted to vote until they have EITHER 2 unforfeited non-troll debates that have entered completion stage OR 100 forum posts.
Those are the minimum criteria to meet and were introduced to stop alt-abuse as well as stop dedicated trolls from ever getting to vote. Unfortunately, this isn't easy to implement in the coding (so you see the vote button and waste effort voting that won't help you get to vote at all).
https://www.debateart.com/debates/157/1-3-is-not-actually-0-3r-and-also-1-doesn-t-equal-0-9r-the-reason-the-misconception-of-1-3-0-3r-is-accepted-by-mainstream-math-is-due-to-a-flaw-in-the-decimal-number-system
https://www.debateart.com/debates/146/0-999-repeating-equals-1
If you use those arguments, I'll most likely vote for you if you explain them correctly. It's irrefutable proof against the bullshit of Pro but I can't guarantee Pro won't argue you.
If youre curious about proof against this, look at death23's debates and search for ones against me. Note that I lost those debates. The people struggle to grap the irrefutable proof.
Supadudz is a very good rapper when he wants to be, he's a tougher opponent in my opinion than you in direct battles because he knows puns and disses that the masses like.
Don't just underestimate him, for all we know waterphoenix is a Type1 alt, which will mean this is immensely tough as Supadudz's weakness is rhyme scheme while type1's weakness is flow and relevant disses. the two will even each other's weaknesses out with their fortes.
Don't just straight up talk them out of the arena, let's put on a good show.
no flat earth stuff will come up, don't worry.
I wasn't the one avoiding you.
let's just make this 2v2
Note for my RFD I said R3 meaning R4
2/5 isn't half.
Stop the 'lel' and attitude and it won't be rude.
Please, in Round 1, make crystal clear if we are debating pro vs con on socialism or on whether Norway is socialist or not.
I am willing to take Con on both, that is why I accepted preemptively.
I am debating in moderating of maximum 2 at a time.
That story sounds like she was killed in order to cover it up, the conniving way that the modern day right-wing can twist such a story is horrifying.
Please, this is going to be a really serious debate for me both because:
1) the topic being a really passionately spoken new-age-rightwing-libertarian propaganda thing that I loathe the influence of and got Trump elected amongst much else in the world (Brexit etc).
2) I am finally starting to care a lot about debating, rather than just 'winning' in itself (though winning ironically will now, in output, be better rewarded to me vs effort put in). I am putting full effort in as is my opponent I assume and it would be best if we let both debaters battle it out with our own wits and ideas, not anything in the comments or tailored to the debate other than what's already available on the Internet and such.
Thanks in advance for your interest in the debate, it is indeed one of those highly emotional ones no matter which side you support. Keep your eye out and you'll be entertained (and informed).
Alec, Hong Kong is a British colony, not an American one.
Let's see how I do when I fully focus on a debate.
Sign me up to your team pls
It was pleasant to make this a lesser priority in my life while enough of a priority to be enjoyed by me.
1) They are not the authorities im referring to.
2) I meant Nixon, not that Reagan was better.
no we don't. If god exists then god, and by extension everything god 'assigned to us' as a role or destination in life, are all themselves without any real purpose or destination.
god is as meaningless as the atheist's universe, neither more nor less.