You didn't grasp a single bit of my argument. I absolutely demolished his monism argument because I conceded it and turned it against him in a phenomenal way.
It is okay, I know you voted honestly and spent time to think and the fact I couldn't get my point across is always my greatest flaw as a debater as my brain operates on levels others don't and that is both a blessing and a curse. To me I make perfect sense, to you I make very little.
To say that the evil is doing unto the victim what is inevitably fine to do under monism is indisputable but the thing is I should have better explained why it's indisputable and kritik'd morality itself and gone with the sociopath mentality into this.
A hufflepuff member, with its variants (which is the issue I will address here) is an honest, hard-working, humble individual.
A gryffindor is a brash, irrational, arrogant individual.
Gryffindor and Slytherin share arrogance, ravenclaw and hufflepuff share humility but the variants are exactly why the four-house system makes no sense. You can get a humble but brave person, they are just the minority is all. They would be a gryffinpuff/huffledor.
3/3 = 1 (you will never ever conclude that 3/3 = 0.9 recurring without the context that Pro is tricking you into taking as valid reasoning).
1/3 when rounded to the nearest thousandth is 0.333
2/3 when rounded to the nearest thousandth is 0.667
So if we do actually round correctly, the answer even with decimals replacing fractions is 0.333 + 0.667 = 1.000 =/= 0.999
What Pro is arguing is that if you never ever rounded the 2/3 to end up with a 7 at the end of it (since you round up 0.6 recurring to end with a 7 no matter what) then you'd never end up with the answer of 1 as opposed to 0,9 recurring as the result of 1/3 + 2/3. This 'I'm so smart' quip made by people who think they are math geniuses fails to admit that if a number is recurring, you never ever could finish writing or delivering the answer in any way at all. What I mean by this is that the millisecond you stop typing '6' and '9' you're betraying yourself as you're rounding the answer and if you round the answer you never ever, ever, ever will get anything but 1.000000 (to whatever decimal point you rounded to).
Now let me give you actual 'I am smart and good at math' sums that make the resolution impossible.
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.
Therefore if we are ever tricked by the formatting of sum to conclude that 1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3, we must remind the one tricking us to remember the '7' that never can end up being a '10' so as to make this answer true.
alright, there's actually something missing in your brain if you think that.
3/3 was the entire argument Pro themselves made and 3/3 is in fact 1 and not .9recurring as proven by me and thus if they are 'exactly equal' this would never be able for me to have proven.
And then if that's true, 0.9r never reaches the last 9 to ever equal 1.
Because I suck but my rating doesn't? ;)
I didn't even report his vote
Everything you brought up was already disproven by my previous rounds beyond any dispute as it's irrefutable fact.
I dropped nothing you liar.
You didn't grasp a single bit of my argument. I absolutely demolished his monism argument because I conceded it and turned it against him in a phenomenal way.
It is okay, I know you voted honestly and spent time to think and the fact I couldn't get my point across is always my greatest flaw as a debater as my brain operates on levels others don't and that is both a blessing and a curse. To me I make perfect sense, to you I make very little.
To say that the evil is doing unto the victim what is inevitably fine to do under monism is indisputable but the thing is I should have better explained why it's indisputable and kritik'd morality itself and gone with the sociopath mentality into this.
Which white rapper says it?
Hufflepuff represents wilfully ignoring logic when it comes in line with what should be done.
COMES IN CONFLICT NOT COMES IN LINE, I WILL CORRECT THIS IN ROUND 2
1/3 not 1.3 for that sum at the start of my R4
Proof that typos make RFD better
Hermione being in Gryffindor is hilariously erroneous. Ron is a Gryffynclaw and more claw than Gryffindor. He was a chess savant.
Andy and Bronto are definitely gryffindors.
Gryffindor is worse than hufflepuff.
A hufflepuff member, with its variants (which is the issue I will address here) is an honest, hard-working, humble individual.
A gryffindor is a brash, irrational, arrogant individual.
Gryffindor and Slytherin share arrogance, ravenclaw and hufflepuff share humility but the variants are exactly why the four-house system makes no sense. You can get a humble but brave person, they are just the minority is all. They would be a gryffinpuff/huffledor.
It is not arrogance if I am better.
Deism is actually 3 not 2 sorry for the error.
Moral authority doesn't mean that god is good just to be clear it's about who invented good to begin with.
Not just acceptable, perfectly acceptable. :)
Awkward I posted my Eminem thing here. Regardless you dropped Tech so I only had to defend Vinnie anyway.
ok that's not true I reported one vote that wasn't against me, or two. but barely any relative.
I didn't report any vote on the Shabshoral debate.
It's not me, I only report votes against me and to be clear this doesn't mean all votes against me.
I have a feeling it's drafterman who has both a vendetta against me and also irritation at vote moderation.
Lmao what an argument to make, pastors never ceases to amaze.
but it's YOU who decides what I get rated and scored and YOU (who believes that resolution is true) that I have to prove is WRONG... see the issue?
...
bump
Because it is you who has to be convinced and you also have to avoid losing.
I want the topic to be that when science isn't objective, it's pseudo-science. You CON, me PRO.
Writing an RFD now.
Bump
...
Bump
I am not trolling and other than his/her conduct vote, 3RU7AL wasn't trolling either.
And what are the definitions?
So let's first agree on definitions before debating then.
@drafterman
https://www.debateart.com/debates/146
I will correct this in round 2.
0.9r05 is in between 0.9r9 and 1
How will we see if you don't?
Make the resolution and take Pro and I'll body you this time.
I said everything I had to say anyway.
Either science is objective or it's subjective.
To the former believer, the latter is speaking untruth in denying the resolution and vice versa.
You either learn nothing new or rule one is never broken.
I don't want rule three and I don't understand rule one as truth hasn't been defined.
Look at the guy realising he is wrong
therefore an infinite string of 9's can't ever be said to approach 1
Kid your rating is the default rating.
Bump to top of debates list
1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3
3/3 = 1 (you will never ever conclude that 3/3 = 0.9 recurring without the context that Pro is tricking you into taking as valid reasoning).
1/3 when rounded to the nearest thousandth is 0.333
2/3 when rounded to the nearest thousandth is 0.667
So if we do actually round correctly, the answer even with decimals replacing fractions is 0.333 + 0.667 = 1.000 =/= 0.999
What Pro is arguing is that if you never ever rounded the 2/3 to end up with a 7 at the end of it (since you round up 0.6 recurring to end with a 7 no matter what) then you'd never end up with the answer of 1 as opposed to 0,9 recurring as the result of 1/3 + 2/3. This 'I'm so smart' quip made by people who think they are math geniuses fails to admit that if a number is recurring, you never ever could finish writing or delivering the answer in any way at all. What I mean by this is that the millisecond you stop typing '6' and '9' you're betraying yourself as you're rounding the answer and if you round the answer you never ever, ever, ever will get anything but 1.000000 (to whatever decimal point you rounded to).
Now let me give you actual 'I am smart and good at math' sums that make the resolution impossible.
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.
Therefore if we are ever tricked by the formatting of sum to conclude that 1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3, we must remind the one tricking us to remember the '7' that never can end up being a '10' so as to make this answer true.
alright, there's actually something missing in your brain if you think that.
3/3 was the entire argument Pro themselves made and 3/3 is in fact 1 and not .9recurring as proven by me and thus if they are 'exactly equal' this would never be able for me to have proven.
What's 3/3? Stop being dumb and smart at the same time.