That's because most people assume 0.99999... actually represents a number with an infinite amount of 9s after the decimal. That's not how mathematicians define it, though.
"This repeating decimal represents the smallest number no less than every decimal number in the sequence (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...); that is, the supremum of this sequence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
Slainte asked for opinions on their argument, so here goes. I think the circular reasoning argument was decent enough, especially since it went unchallenged. The only issue, and this might be unfair, because PRO never brought it up, is that PRO might've interpreted the resolution differently—that any instances of the Holy Spirit would serve as valid evidence if they occurred. There would be more work needed to get around CON's circular reasoning point, but CON had an opportunity to make their argument stronger by pointing out that non-empirical evidence is not always trustworthy and that human emotions are not the same as facts. PRO might've been planning to argue that there are certain instances of the Holy Spirit (arguing for evidence of miracles, for example) but it's hard for CON to argue against that until PRO gives examples.
It's hard to judge the strength of arguments when CON is not forced to defend them, but they were good enough to get the job done.
It's not that it isn't brought up in socialist circles, just that marginal utility with regard to wealth inequality tends to be the central point in these types of debates. Not writing off your approach though, since it would all depend on how Lxam responds.
Interesting debate, to say the least
You can still vote, you just have to base your decision on the information in the debate.
Debate is essentially tied right now. Plz vote if you have time.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Please vote if you can!
So it would be the last number in the sequence (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...)? Because it's an infinite sequence. There is no last number.
I think Pro is "Pro radical feminism" especially when I translate the decription.
That's because most people assume 0.99999... actually represents a number with an infinite amount of 9s after the decimal. That's not how mathematicians define it, though.
"This repeating decimal represents the smallest number no less than every decimal number in the sequence (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...); that is, the supremum of this sequence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
Essentially you're just debating a truism.
Not sure if you're busy with the tournament, but plz consider voting if you get a chance.
Pro I believe
I probably should have tagged you in the comment about my typo, I guess we'll just see how the voters feel about it
Please vote if you have time
If Pro pulls an upset here, I want this debate in the Hall of Fame
I fully expect Barney's vote to be a paragraph and whiteflame's to be 5 pages long whilst eventually reaching the same conclusion.
This is what free speech was invented for
Thank you for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Thank you for voting!
*made a clerical error in the last part of R3. "not violating" is supposed to say "not following"
Sure
Good, maybe? I mean if you don't win overwhelmingly against a Nazi, you kind of lose at the same time
I would pay to see that
If whiteflame votes against you, you know you really screwed up
Well, Hitler did execute one of the biggest mass murderers in history.
Please vote!
I put it through an AI detector
You can reuse arguments as long as you wrote them. It's not plagiarism.
The ladder half of Tainted's response is written by AI. That's why it switches to being politically correct and starts arguing your side.
Well that's unfortunate
Done
Lmk if you want any more changes
Surprised you didn't accept it
Thanks for voting!
Yeah ik. It was my bad attempt at a joke.
I wish you the best in your new life as a tankie
Essentially my position
Impressions:
Slainte asked for opinions on their argument, so here goes. I think the circular reasoning argument was decent enough, especially since it went unchallenged. The only issue, and this might be unfair, because PRO never brought it up, is that PRO might've interpreted the resolution differently—that any instances of the Holy Spirit would serve as valid evidence if they occurred. There would be more work needed to get around CON's circular reasoning point, but CON had an opportunity to make their argument stronger by pointing out that non-empirical evidence is not always trustworthy and that human emotions are not the same as facts. PRO might've been planning to argue that there are certain instances of the Holy Spirit (arguing for evidence of miracles, for example) but it's hard for CON to argue against that until PRO gives examples.
It's hard to judge the strength of arguments when CON is not forced to defend them, but they were good enough to get the job done.
It's not that it isn't brought up in socialist circles, just that marginal utility with regard to wealth inequality tends to be the central point in these types of debates. Not writing off your approach though, since it would all depend on how Lxam responds.
Yeah, definitely not the argument I would expect, especially as a central point.
If it helps, I could screenshot all the sources I use and link to that.
Thanks for voting!
Looks like they figured it out...sort of.
Thanks for voting. Shame there wasn't more here.
Please vote!
Not sure about your view on this particular issue, but you're free to accept.
Should have said this earlier, but thanks for voting!
Plz vote if you can