A first debate is a major premise and a last and/or second debate is a minor premise.
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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....
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]
(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.
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).
Is this correct?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.