The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

I will NOT commit a logical fallacy in this debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 738 times Debate No: 83833
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




The dangerous challenge is imposed upon me.
"In philosophy, the term formal fallacy for logical fallacies and defined formally as a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid." From
The only rule is that you may not use any of my opening arguments from "The Fallacy Challenge" against Envisage, although you may argue for the same fallacies committed. You will not count my first round to accuse of a fallacy. Round one is acceptance only. Round two we will construct our arguments (opponent may rebut), and then round three we refute each other. The voters shall decide if I made a fallacy in this debate or not. Note that the comments section do not count for my opponent's accusations if I somehow accidentally make a fallacy within the comments of this debate.
In philosophy, the term formal fallacy for logical fallacies and definedformally as: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


1. The debate's shortness
Had this debate been longer, I would have been prone to making more fallacies. As according to Murphy's Law, under an infinite time span, if a flaw can occur, it will occur. [] However, not only is this debate finite, it is merely three rounds. (Murphy's law is also inaccurate, but I will get back to that later) In round one, I already said that round did not count, thus, I only have to resist making logical fallacies within these two rounds. You might ask, why not only make this debate two rounds? I wanted a rebuttal round just in case my opponent falsely accused me of making a logical fallacy, and I would be unable to refute with just one round of opening arguments. Thus, with only two rounds in total to make fallacies, and one round to refute my opponent's cases, this debate is idealized to prevent me from making logical fallacies.
Have I made a fallacy in this argument? Murphy's law could be accused to higher authority fallacy. However, I did not ever state that Murphy was correct, rather, it was a hypothesis. Note that the Wikipedia article notes that "Chatterjee found that Murphy's law so stated could be disproved using the principle of least action." Knowing this, I only made two strong arguments, and thus further strengthen the fact that my opponent has far less to accuse of instead if I had made more, or irrelevant, arguments.

2. Awareness of fallacies
Having started this debate and read over the fallacies, I know that I have at least some basic grounding in logical fallacies. I am careful to not make any suppositions or connections that may lead to a downfall or a pitfall within my arguments. I do not insult my opponent, and I do not distract the topic (ad hominem and red herring respectively), or even move the goalpost (special pleading) or raise a weaker and easier argument (strawman). The only fallacy that I can think of is anecdotal. However, that would actually not be a fallacy, in this case, or even genetic fallacy. I do not say that "I will not make fallacies because 9spaceking does not make fallacies", rather, I say that those whom have read over logical fallacies and are careful to not make them are less likely to commit a logical fallacy since they read their arguments over and are careful to NOT commit logical fallacies. Therefore, it can be concluded that that my chances to make a fallacy are much less than a debater who does not know logical fallacies.

Onto you, my opponent.


1) Base Arguments

1A) All arguments by us are fallacious in nature

It simply because you and I are non-omniscient beings. We know nothing about anything. You know that argument, I think it's called solipsism... Yeah the one that says you can't prove anything is real except maybe self. Well, like it, we can't really prove any reasoning is valid (non-fallacious). I'll try and illustrate my point: Is the universe random? Actually a better question, is complexity random? Now you could probably find a lot of people with this kind of view, especially among those naturalists... basically If you don't believe that a rational mind created the universe, then your doomed to think the universe is random and meaningless, after all if no mind created the universe, why would the universe therein be rational? But anyway, if we entertain the idea that complexity is actually random, then the universe is 5 minutes old... Yeah I know, you didn't see that one coming did you?

You might say, hey there is no way the universe is 5 minutes old, you might even say you remember things that happened last week (like playing fallout 4, or going to work or whatever) Yeah, but your memories are from the mind, and the mind is complex, so the memories would be random too. Simply your memories wouldn't count cause they're based on randomness instead of truth. While sure I don't actually know how old the universe, as I said these things to make a point. I could even take this a step further, if our minds are random, can one prove two plus two equal four? We could never know from any arguments made from us mortals. Simply because our minds are random, we may simply think 2+2=4 out of randomness instead of certainty.

But I'll try and sum this up in a flow of agreements, if you disagree on one of these please reference which mise your talking about.

1) Complexity might be random
2) Our minds are complex
3) We cannot know anything for certain if complexity is random
4) If we cannot be absolutely certain about our arguments, they are fallacious

As you can tell, this would cause problems with all my opponent's arguments.

2) Rebuttals

2A) Shortness of debate is irrelevant.

As the resolution reads, “I will NOT commit a logical fallacy in this debate “, this point doesn't seem to help you out at all in proving that you will not commit a fallacy in this debate. You only need 1 round to commit a logical fallacy, you have 3 rounds.

2B) Awareness of fallacies doesn't necessarily mean immunity to making them

Look, I've read up on fallacies before, a book I'd recommend get is the fallacy detective, good book. I also do have experience with actual debate, as I did team policy debate for just a little over a year. And I can tell you that it is very foolish to think that you will never commit any bad reasoning after studying arguments. Sure, I hope your arguments will improve, but not necessarily to the point where your arguments are invincible. The debate topic doesn't read “my chances to make a fallacy are much less than a debater who does not know logical fallacies.” but is “I will NOT commit a logical fallacy in this debate” So saying this or that will improve my chances is irrelevant, the thing you have to establish is will you or will you not commit a fallacy. Chances don't prove anything.

Debate Round No. 2


Note that while the contention is "I will NOT commit a logical fallacy", these "fallacies" are arguable and some can be misinterpreted. The basic premise, in reality, is to prove that I have not committed a logical fallacy in this debate, and prove that my previous arguments have no logical fallacies, and thus why I attempted to create an argument about why I would not commit a logical fallacy within this round.

To address my opponent's arguments:
1. All arguments are fallacious
My opponent is wrong that "we know nothing about anything", as clearly contrasted by the famous philosopher's quote, "I think, therefore I am". If you think you are, then you are. It's as simple as that. In addition, my opponent is moving goal posts and making a broad statement too general that does not apply to this debate. This debate is merely about NOT committing logical fallacies on my side, so I do not have to "know everything". In addition, I only need to convince the audience (the voters) that I have not committed a logical fallacy and will not commit a logical fallacy. I may have tricked people, and I may use tricks, but if voters cannot spot any, and if my opponent does not point out any real fallacy made by me, there is no real substance in my opponent's arguments. My opponent tries to say the following:

1) Complexity might be random
2) Our minds are complex
3) We cannot know anything for certain if complexity is random
4) If we cannot be absolutely certain about our arguments, they are fallacious

First of all, even if you are not absolutely sure about something, it does not mean they are false. For example, I might be unsure about an author's name, yet naming up random names popping in my head just might get the right answer. In fact, if I outright guess the answer while still NOT being absolutely certain, the answer is certainly NOT fallacious. Furthermore, my opponent makes the leap from "might be random" to "complexity is random". He suggests complexity's plausibility as random. He does not outright state, "complexity is random", and thus, argument one and three do not connect together. He also doesn't even try to sufficiently support argument number two. What is the true meaning of complex? A computer could be complex. An "invention" could be complex. There's too much holes in my opponent's arguments that he does not support.

2. Shortness is irrelevant
My opponent is right that I only need one round in order to commit a logical fallacy. However, let us assume that I somehow manage to create a "perfect round" short of logical fallacies. As I have stated before, this is extremely prone to sniping, as you can falsely accuse me and I can't even refute you. Therefore, I need two rounds to be ideal to refute you just in case you accuse me falsely of logical fallacies. Any more rounds, and I would be more likely to make logical fallacies as the law of the least action highlights any more rounds and logical fallacies might be committed more. It makes sense because there is a small chance to make logical fallacies even by accident, therefore I have to create just the right amount of rounds, which I managed.

Awareness of fallacy
I never said I was immune to make a logical fallacy, I just said I was extremely unlikely because I knew my logical fallacies and read my round over and over before submitting it. Even if I accidentally make a fallacy, when I read it over with a critical point of view, I will most likely find one. With multitudes of looking over and revising according to what could be accused as a logical fallacy on Wikipedia's page about those fallacies, there is practically no chance for my opponent to examine for fallacies which I have missed.

I have not made a logical fallacy in round two because I explained why the rounds were just right for me to NOT commit a logical fallacy, and furthermore, I stated my personal experience with logical fallacies. My opponent has only accused me of one fallacy, which I have refuted because he makes illogical jumps in his arguments, in addition to the fact that I only need to make it look like I haven't committed a logical fallacy. If my opponent can't prove I made a logical fallacy, the voters will have no chance but to vote for me. And that is what they will do because I did not make a logical fallacy in this debate.



1) All arguments are fallacious

A) Well I agree with you to some extant that it might be true that if you think you might exist. How would I know? I never met anyone that could think and not exist simultaneously... Yet,I never met the Queen of Sheba, that doesn't mean she never existed. So I can't rule out the possibly of such a a being to exist. You and I might feel that 2+2=4 is true or that raping a woman is immoral, but if everything is random there might be something wrong with our minds that the feeling of it being true is simply chemical. Sure 2+2=4 might be true, but how could we possibly know if we can't trust our own minds? And if you can't trust your own minds, then you have the same problem with saying “I think therefore I exist” because your using your mind to rationalize that statement. The flaw here is that your using your mind to assert this.

Guessing is always fallacious, because it's a “flaw” in reasoning. As fallacy defined by you “formally as a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.” Guessing is always a flaw in an deductive argument, as it renders it possibly untrue, hence why it's invalid. Sure it might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that it is fallacious. i'm going to count that as falacious reasoning as you said“ In fact, if I outright guess the answer while still NOT being absolutely certain, the answer is certainly NOT fallacious “ and this was committed in round 3, not in round 1. just saying

You mentioned that I made a leap to being “might be random” and that the mises don't correlate. We're talking about uncertainty here, if you agree that complexity might be random, you can't be certain that it isn't. Otherwise you would contradict yourself because your saying your certain and uncertain simultaneously. I think i'm uncertain that complexity is random, and if you do too mise 4) works because it's about uncertainty.

Also if you have a problem with words, google can help. If you search “complexity define” you will find “the state or quality of being intricate or complicated.” The human brain is very intricate, it's possibly the most complex 2 pound matter in the universe. Definitely more complex then a computer.

2) Shortness is irrelevant

You agree that there is a chance. You clearly can't defend the resolution that reads “I will NOT commit a logical fallacy in this debate” cause you can't prove it. as I said before it doesn't say “I might not commit”, but will not. Obviously I don't have the burden of proof here, which is why it's problematic for him.

Also I don't think I can assume about a perfect round, assumptions are to fallacious for my taste-buds. We could just simply assume that you committed a fallacy, and I won the debate. That might be true too. =P

Dialogue to Voters

Already voters, if for anyone of these reasons you agree with, please vote con. You only need to agree with one, not with all of them. As the challenge was imposed on my opponent, not me, so i don't have the burden of defending any argument of mine as being non-fallacious.

1) If you agree with my argument about the mind possibly being random, and causing complications with anything being certain, which would inherently make our arguments fallacious (especially ones Pro made). Please vote in favor of Con

2) If you feel that Con can't defend the resolution that he will not commit a fallacy (which Pro claims there is a chance that it might happen because of an accident, which is pretty much guessing he won't). Please vote in favor of Con

3)If you agree that guessing is a flaw in an argument, and therefore a fallacy. Please vote in favor of Con.

Anyway, thanks for the debate. Got to work my brain cells a little.

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.