The Instigator
Ore_Ele
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
badger
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Cats and Fleas

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 3 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,486 times Debate No: 15573
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

Ore_Ele

Pro

This debate is based off of what has been going on in this thread.
http://www.debate.org...

Feel free to read and comment in that thread.

In this debate we are only going to argue the follow.

GIVEN "If you do not have fleas, then you do not have a cat."

I claim that this logically means "If you do have a cat, then you do have fleas."

I thank Badger to accept this debate, since he is the one that originally told me to debate him on it.
badger

Con

so i'll have to explain why it doesn't logically mean that..

right.. if you don't have a cat, you don't have fleas..

what can be taken from this?

1. that you need to have a cat to have fleas.

2. see 1

3. see 1

4. nothing else really to be taken from it but 1.

what not to take:

1. if you have a cat, you have fleas

reasons:

it just doesn't logically follow.. becuase you have to have a cat to have fleas does not mean that if you do have a cat that you must have fleas. it just means that having a cat is necessary for having fleas. not that having a cat means you necessarily have fleas.

a similar example:

if you do not have aids, then you have not had sex.

why is this similar? well it's the same question only i've swapped flea with aids and cats with sex. is the premise saying that if you've had sex that you necessarily have aids? no it bloody isn't.. it's only saying that if you have aids then you've necessarily had sex..

you can still have a cat and not have fleas! it's only that you definitely don't if you don't have a cat.. like how you've definitely not contracted aids if you haven't had sex..

i dunno why i'm giving examples.. what's obvious is obvious.






Debate Round No. 1
Ore_Ele

Pro

First, I'll show how my opponent's argument is not logically following the initial premise, then go on to show that Pro is correct.

My opponent starts with "so i'll have to explain why it doesn't logically mean that..right.. if you don't have a cat, you don't have fleas.."

Again, he says "it you don't have a cat, you don't have fleas," please see that this is not what we are arguing. In the OP, it is given (just as it was in the thread), "If you do not have fleas, then you do not have a cat."

"If you do not have fleas, then you do not have a cat." =/= "if you don't have a cat, you don't have fleas."

I will show that you cannot simply flip flop the two ends of a statement and hold its logic.

Example, "all black men are people" =/= "all people are black men" and "all little league players are children" =/= "all children are little league players."

I will also show that you can't flip flop the ends with If/Then statments. "If you shoot yourself in the head, then you will die" =/= "If you die, then you must have shot yourself in the head,"

Since I have shown that his statement cannot accurately be derived from the initial given statement, everything that is based upon that false statement falls apart.

Now, I will move on to supporting why the Pro stance is accurate.

We are looking at two different varaibles here, Cats and Fleas. With each variable, there are two possibilities, yes or no. That means that you can either have cats or not have cats, and you can either have fleas or not have fleas, there is no middle ground (you can't kind of have fleas). This means, that when looking at both variables, we have four possible options.

A) You can have a cat and fleas
B) You can have a cat and no fleas
C) You can have no cat and fleas
D) You can have no cat and no fleas

Now, let us take our GIVEN statement, "If you do not have fleas, then you do not have a cat." This statement applies to "B" and "D" (the two variables with no fleas). So let us look at just those two.

B) You can have a cat and no fleas
D) You can have no cat and no fleas

The GIVEN tells us that B is not possible. So we only have A, C, and D as possibilities.

A) You can have a cat and fleas
C) You can have no cat and fleas
D) You can have no cat and no fleas

The only option, with a cat, is option A. That means, logically, that if you have a cat, you have no option but to get fleas too. The only way to have a cat with no fleas, is by removing the GIVEN statement, but that is not allowed on a logic test, since you are suppose to be testing your logic around those GIVENs.

Thank you.
badger

Con

If you do not have fleas, then you do not have a cat.

which is the same bloody thing as saying if you don't have a cat then you don't have fleas.. all this statement is saying that it's necessary to have a cat to have fleas, not that if you have a cat that you necessarily have fleas, as i've said already and heard no argument against..

if it were to say that if you have a cat, you have fleas.. then yes you'd have fleas if you had a cat.. but that's not what it's saying..

i'll phrase my aids example to suit

if you do not have aids, then you have not had sex.

is this not the exact same question only substituting aids for fleas and having sex for having a cat?

and is this saying that if you have had sex then you have aids? no it is not. like with the cat question it's only saying that having had sex is a necessary requirement for having contracted aids. is it saying that you must have aids if you've had sex? obviously not.. should the answer to the cat question not obviously be the same? yes

i really don't see how people aren't getting this?

and i'll leave my argument at that cos i'm obviously bloody right. to myself anyway at least :)

Debate Round No. 2
Ore_Ele

Pro

Since my opponent has seen his mistakes and said so in the thread that started this debate (bottom of page 22 and top of page 23 [1][2]), I'll not go through this arguement and just let it pass.

Thank you,

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
badger

Con

i'm an idiot :)
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
well i'm fairly slow amn't i..
Posted by mattrodstrom 6 years ago
mattrodstrom
also badger... no one said the cat had fleas!

lol
Posted by mattrodstrom 6 years ago
mattrodstrom
the original statement is:
people who do not have fleas do not have cats.

so.. make that statement:
The Big group of Flea-less people (all ppl that Don't have fleas) have not One cat among them (none of them have a cat).

then you say Joe has a cat..

I say... Oh, I guess he doesn't belong to that Cat-less Group of Flea-less people huh??

and you say.. Yeah, I suppose not then huh?.. I have heard that they don't have cats..

and I say.. yeah... if the Flea-less people don't have cats.. Joe, who has a cat, surely can't be one of them Flea-less folk.

and then we shake hands and you walk away.
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
i can't write that bit in my next round i suppose what with the introducing of new stuff or something.. but oreele's clearly retarded anyway and i'm clearly right :)

note i took this debate not to argue.. but to see who agreed with me.. i could've dismantled his round 2 arguments if i'd wanted.. i just didn't want to waste my energy.. and he'd not touched my initial argument so why should i have?
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
i'mma write that bit in my next round..

why would someone having a cat with no fleas contradict the statement "people who do not have cats, do not have fleas"?
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
flealess people.. i'll talk about 'em..

so if you do not have a cat, you do not have fleas..

so people with no cats are fleasless people.. granted :)

so it's necessary to have a cat to have fleas is all that's to be taken from that..

or it's necessary to have fleas to have a cat.. whatever way you'd like to put it..

some dude has a cat.. now yes it is necessary to have a cat to have fleas..

but why does this mean that if you have a cat you necessarily have fleas?

it doesn't as far as i can see.

you can have a cat and not have fleas and you're not going against the statement we're debating at all..

does the fact that if someone has a cat and no fleas negate the taken as true statement that if you do not have a cat that you do not have fleas? no it doesn't.. why would it?

so.. i'm right.. matt, you're an idiot.. good day to you :)
Posted by mattrodstrom 6 years ago
mattrodstrom
orele!!

talk about Flea-less people!

no one likes "logical" descriptions... show how the rules apply to people generally...

like how flea-less people Don't have any cats!
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
matt's a retard :)
Posted by mattrodstrom 6 years ago
mattrodstrom
RFD: Orele wins arguments.
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
have you possibly finally realised your retardation, oreele? you're taking an awfully long time to reply.. you're not by any chance trying to get back your tax dollars? :P
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Ore_ElebadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Obviously the fleas have aids.
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Ore_ElebadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor Badger.
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
Ore_ElebadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: badger forfeitted.