The Instigator
abstractposters
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
A.WitherspoonVI
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

A first debate is a major premise and a last and/or second debate is a minor premise.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
abstractposters
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,838 times Debate No: 25007
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (1)

 

abstractposters

Pro

A first debate is a major premise and a last and/or second debate is a minor premise.

I present evidence:

(MAJOR) [The Bible Math Presented By The Preachatician] [Is An Accurate Interpretation.]

(MINOR) [I, Tyler, am arguing that the below argument and the equivalent title] [make up a valid syllogism.]

Note: I have divided the major and minor premises into subjects and assertions, of which this debate is based, in opposition to subject and predicates. Whoever accepts this 3rd debate is acknowledging that categorical syllogisms are insufficient (in-themselves) and may not concede this fact within their thesis.

It is recommended to read both debates fully, including the comments section, and take into incorporation the existent video by the Preachatician, as this is what the subjectivity of this debate is on.
A.WitherspoonVI

Con

First Of all my Opponent's introduction Is almost completely incomprehensible and I cannot draw any clear arguments from it.

Before I go Any further with this debate can you please clarify your introduction, it makes does not make much sense to me and appears to be making a reference to some other debate I am not aware of. What i managed to Dechypher from your Introduction was that you were going to be defending a mathomatical Model supported in the Bible,(" A first debate is a major premise and a last and/or second debate is a minor premise.") Which makes The first Debate have greater weight over the second debate, and even this confuses me....
Debate Round No. 1
abstractposters

Pro

A.WitherspoonVI states: "First of all my opponent's introduction is almost completely incomprehensible and I cannot draw any clear arguments from it."
I, abstractposters, state: "Whoever accepts this 3rd debate is acknowledging that categorical syllogisms are insufficient (in-themselves) and may not concede this fact within their thesis."
I consider Con's concession of the fact that my argument does not imply any ‘clear arguments' and render Con's argument as insufficient to support such a claim and I overlook this appeal to authority.
I divide my premises into subjects and assertions.

(1) [A first debate] [is a major premise]

and

(2) [A last and/or second debate] [is a minor premise.]
Allow me to reiterate these premises in layman's terms.
There exists at least one debate in the entire universe that is in existence as a major premise.
There exists at least one debate in the entire universe that is in existence as a minor premise.
Although, it seems easy to render what exists (the two debates mentioned) as almost completely incomprehensible, it would have to pass through an individual's freedom first to become incomprehensible.
The major and minor premises are that of a practical syllogism which are not only not almost incomprehensible, but much is known.
The major and minor premises do not belong to a categorical syllogism, which are incomprehensible (in-themselves) and only ever imply inferiority. (in-themselves is another wording for in-itself)
Practical Syllogism: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I agree to the fact that the first debate has greater weight than the second.
Categorical syllogisms are immoral.
A.WitherspoonVI

Con

I"A first debate is a major premise and a last and/or second debate is a minor premise." Okay so I have gathered that I am debate that A second debate is indeed not not a minor premise and a 1st debate is not a major premise.

which means we are arguing Syllogism. Which states: A syllogism is valid if and only if the conclusion necessarily follows the premises, i.e., if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Although there are 256 possible forms (4 possible variations (a, e, i, o) for each part, three parts (major premise, minor premise, conclusion), and four figures, so 4*4*4*4=256) of syllogism, only 19 of them are valid. The valid forms for each figure is given below, with their mnemonic names (each containing three vowels specifying the form of the part (a, e, i, o) in order of major premise, minor premise, conclusion).
http://www.wikihow.com...

Is this correct?
Debate Round No. 2
A.WitherspoonVI

Con

exelcelent.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by abstractposters 4 years ago
abstractposters
Sadness is the first torus of the 2nd Hell and you're the hole, ADT_Clone.
Posted by ADT_Clone 4 years ago
ADT_Clone
Abstractposters doesn't know what an "appeal to authority" actually is. An appeal to authority occurs when an argument references someone as an expert on something as evidence when that person is not actually an expert on that said thing. For example, celebrities endorsing shoes such as Nike. Another situation can occur when there is no clear consensus on the subject between all the experts on the subject.

Regardless, abstractposter does not use the "appeal to authority" correctly. He is using this by claiming that his opponent is making an argument, and as he does not believe his opponent is an expert on the argument that he is making, his opponent is appealing to himself as an authority which is not an expert. It doesn't work like that abstractposter, if he is not correct in what he is saying, then you need to show that he is not being reasonable and prove that he is not an expert.

Furthermore, I think abstractposter simply puts down random illogical reasons/fallacies his opponent has committed that don't actually make sense. Then when someone claims the argument doesn't make sense or isn't clear, he claims that they're attacking him, are stupid or simply aren't an expert on whether an argument is clear then makes some more illogical reasoning.

It's really sad.
Posted by abstractposters 4 years ago
abstractposters
abstractposters is sorry :(
Posted by A.WitherspoonVI 4 years ago
A.WitherspoonVI
I am not going for a walk i am reaserching what you were saying so i figure out what it is am arguing.
Posted by abstractposters 4 years ago
abstractposters
Man, you are rich and must think of me wicked.
My opponent has gone for a walk and you lust for said opponent.
Your conscious has been suppressed.
God.
Posted by ADT_Clone 4 years ago
ADT_Clone
<I am being down to Earth. Pi is rational and defines itself.>

That doesn't relate to cause at all. Besides, pi as in the mathematical constant pi is irrational. If you mean rational in a knowledge perspective, then explain why it is rational.

As for your second answer, I just realised you posted a second video, spirit of the science. I haven't looked at that one, I'm merely referring to the first one with the approximations of pi. If you are referring to that one with your answer, then what you said doesn't make sense. An infinite series is infinite, so even if you divide it by two and call the first half the beginning and second half the end, both halfs are still infinite series.

I still don't know what this series is, could you please write it out so I can see what series you are talking about.

<You tell me first, what is the significance of (5n^2 + 2n^-1 + n^-2).>

There is no significance. In order to have a significance, you need a context. Since you haven't told me the context in which this equation is directly related to, there is no significance of it.

I would like to know what the context of the equations you are talking about is, and how the context is directly related to the equations you present.
Posted by abstractposters 4 years ago
abstractposters
<Why have you defined cause?> <I am being down to Earth. Pi is rational and defines itself.>

<How does something having reason contained in it imply that the infinite series is equal to pi?> < (1) The reason is that bifurcation is the splitting of a main body in two. (2) The main body or sum is thus divided in two. (3) We can see that pi is equal to the beginning and end of the series. (4) In order to split pi simply see it as (mu)(magnitude^2).

< What is the significance of the relations shown in that video?> <You tell me first, what is the significance of (5n^2 + 2n^-1 + n^-2).>
Posted by ADT_Clone 4 years ago
ADT_Clone
Amendment to my second sentence, 'You or I have not used the word "cause"...'.
Posted by ADT_Clone 4 years ago
ADT_Clone
Why have you defined cause? You or I have used the word "cause" in the comment section, neither have you or your opponent used the word "cause" in your debate.

If you are defining it in respect to the implication you mentioned("Pi can imply the beginning and end of an infinite series in virtue of the fact that..."), saying that pi was the "cause" of the beginning and end of an infinite series, that still makes no logical sense.

If you are talking about my use of implication("How does something having reason contained in it imply that the infinite series is equal to pi?"), if the "cause" is something having reason contained in it, I don't see your point as you haven't defined what the reason is.

I am really trying to work out the significance of what you are trying to explain. I have asked specific questions in my previous comment which will help me understand, so would you be able to answer some of them. Preferably directly, in the following or similar format so that it is easy for me to understand:

"<My Question>" - <Your Answer>

Thank you.
Posted by abstractposters 4 years ago
abstractposters
Aristotle: 'Cause' means: (a) in one sense, that as the result of whose presence something comes into being—e.g. the bronze of a statue and the silver of a cup, and the classes which contain these [i.e., the material cause]; (b) in another sense, the form or pattern; that is, the essential formula and the classes which contain it—e.g. the ratio 2:1 and number in general is the cause of the octave—and the parts of the formula [i.e., the formal cause]. (c) The source of the first beginning of change or rest; e.g. the man who plans is a cause, and the father is the cause of the child, and in general that which produces is the cause of that which is produced, and that which changes of that which is changed [i.e., the efficient cause]. (d) The same as "end"; i.e. the final cause; e.g., as the "end" of walking is health. For why does a man walk? "To be healthy," we say, and by saying this we consider that we have supplied the cause [the final cause]. (e) All those means towards the end which arise at the instigation of something else, as, e.g. fat-reducing, purging, drugs and instruments are causes of health; for they all have the end as their object, although they differ from each other as being some instruments, others actions [i.e., necessary conditions].
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
abstractpostersA.WitherspoonVITied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: First, Con loses conduct for (a) accepting a debate where he had no idea what the resolution pertained to and (b) wasting the first round asking for clarification as opposed to taking care of this in the comments section beforehand. On the arguments, it's a clear win for Pro. Con never presented a rebuttal and after Pro explained the resolution he wasted yet another round (R2) asking for more clarification. The last round was terribly disappointing. I thought at the very least that they could argue a little even if it wouldn't exactly be comprehensive.