The Instigator
TheTruthAnalyst
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
izbo10
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Izbo's Syllogism is Invalid

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 6 votes the winner is...
TheTruthAnalyst
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,483 times Debate No: 19485
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (18)
Votes (6)

 

TheTruthAnalyst

Pro

This is Izbo's recent syllogism:

Premise 1: A theist must answer yes to the question do you believe in god.

Premise 2: I don't know is not a yes to the question

conclusion- He is not a theist, and not a theist is the same as atheist.

I will show this syllogism to be invalid.

1st round is acceptance only. Burden of proof is shared. No rebuttals, only one round of presenting arguments for each side. Both sides can attempt to define words as they wish.
Debate Round No. 1
TheTruthAnalyst

Pro

I thank Izbo for accepting this debate.

For a syllogism to be formed correctly, it must contain a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. Each of these three propositions must contain exactly two terms, and the syllogism must contain exactly 3 terms.[1]

Izbo's syllogism contains 5 terms, and I will simplify the syllogism to be more clear:

Major premise: All A's respond with B
Minor premise: C is not B
Conclusion: D is not an A, which makes D an E

A - Theist
B - The characteristic of answering yes to the question 'Do you believe in God?'
C - The response 'I don't know.'
D - He(this happens to be in reference to a specific person on DDO, but that is irrelevant)
E - Atheist

Clearly, Izbo's syllogism contains more than 3 terms. The fallacy of four(or more) terms applies. Neither premise alludes to 'He' or 'Atheist'. As such, the logic cannot flow from major to minor to conclusion, and the syllogism is therefore invalid.


[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...;
izbo10

Con

First of all thanks for wasting my time on semantics.

http://atheism.about.com...

valid is grounded and since atheist and not theist mean exactly the same thing they are interchangable. For anybody that doesn't understand this you can check it out here:

http://www.englishclub.com...

It even gives the example.

Now, he wants to start with the he part, this is really a weak attempt and cheap underhanded tactic that was a waste of time to write out. It did not need to be said and was implied in our conversation. He is really reaching here and I am not wasting my time on nonsense like this. It was valid as the premise conclude that he is not a theist or the same thing is an atheist, by very definition of the word. At the end of the day it is not my fault my opponent does not understand meanings.
Debate Round No. 2
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 5 years ago
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
hahahahaha. this is sooo funny(: izbo, does everyone hate you? lol. ur pretty cool, arguing about how ur syllogism is so great, and trying to disregard arguments merely with a statement about semantics.. LOL.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Pro made a prima facie case. Pro, therefore, has met the burden of proof, and will win unless his argument is refuted.

I expected Con to straighten out the disjointed argument attributed to him, and try to establish that there had been a meeting of the minds, that a valid syllogism had been communicated even if not carefully phrased. Con might have said something like,

: P1: Theists believe in gods. (Definition.)
: P2: If one doesn't know whether he believes in gods, then one doesn't belief in god. (From the nature of belief.)
: C1: Therefore, if one doesn't know whether he believes in gods, one is not a theist.
: P3: Joe doesn't know whether he believes in gods. (Stipulated <link>)
: C2: Therefore, Joe is not a theist. (From C1 and P3.)
: P4: One who is not a theist is an atheist. (Definition.)
: C3: Joe is not a theist. (From C2 and P4.)

But Con ranted aimlessly, communicating little aside from promiscuous insults, and obscuring with ill-constructed sentence-oids.

Persuasion: Pro.
Grammar: Pro.
Behavior: Pro.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
If I put a he said in front of premise 2 it would have no issues, but since we were in an informal challenge I figured he was smart enough to figure it out. Sorry, for my opponents stupidity.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
I reckon the reason that TA focused on the structure of the syllogism, rather than its content, is because there were only one round for arguments. It seemed a little cheap, but it worked.
Posted by TheTruthAnalyst 5 years ago
TheTruthAnalyst
Renascor, I said the syllogism is invalid. A four-term syllogism is still a syllogism, but it's invalid(and therefore unsound).
Posted by Renascor 5 years ago
Renascor
@ izbo10, If you wanted an attempt at winning, you should have called Pro on the fact that he called your "not-a-syllogism" to be a syllogism in the resolution. Because he recognized your statement as a syllogism then he admitted to your syllogism being just that.
Posted by TheTruthAnalyst 5 years ago
TheTruthAnalyst
Izbo, your syllogism had 5 terms. A valid syllogism has to have exactly 3. You didn't even try to show that fact.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
It truly is amazing how stupid and ignorant you people are thinking something as basic as this is invalid.
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
well maikuru, valid doesnt mean sound. For example arguments like these:

If izbo's avatar is a default then God exists.
Izbos avatar is a default.
--> God exists.

If the story behind izbos username is cute than God exists.
The story behind izbos username is cute.
--> God exists.

They're valid bc the premises follow..but they definently aren't sound.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Conduct: PRO tried to play semantics, thus losing the conduct point.
Grammar: This is quote obvious. Izbo couldn't even get his first word right.
Arguments: However, that doesn't matter because con showed that sound=/=valid.
Sources: PRO relied on Wikipedia whereas con sources twice with more reliable sources.

Sorry, but that's the honest truth. Izbo wins.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
TheTruthAnalystizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
TheTruthAnalystizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The syllogism does not even make sense within the English language, the reader is forced to ignore this and presume it's meaning. Pro's argument is utterly ignored by Con whilst showing typically izbionic logic, conduct and English.
Vote Placed by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
TheTruthAnalystizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: This was kind of a waste of a debate but I think Pro's definition does make the "syllogism" invalid since it is not a syllogism. Pro really should have shown that the syllogism was invalid in content which was easy and I would actually like to do it in another debate if Izbo wishes.
Vote Placed by Renascor 5 years ago
Renascor
TheTruthAnalystizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better spelling and Con demonstrated poor conduct.
Vote Placed by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
TheTruthAnalystizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Reasons for voting decision: It is valid but not sound, however a basic syllogism should contain only 3 terms.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
TheTruthAnalystizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry pro, you lose. Analysis in comments.