The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Inventorkid
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Logic is cause and effect, equal is plus and minus

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 1 vote the winner is...
Inventorkid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 771 times Debate No: 66570
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

equal is where im holding my hand in front of me, plus is where i can move my hand to, and minus is how my hand got to where it is, and where ever my hand is, is equal. i am equal because i can plus and minus
Inventorkid

Con

Hello, Pro, I accept this debate.

You seem to be making up definitions for these words, equal, plus, and minus.

Your definitions based on your opening argument:
Equal: When you hold your hand in front of oneself
Plus: Where you can move your hand to
Minus: How your hand got to where it is

This is flawed because these words do not mean that, and your made up definitions do not seem to have a word to go along with them, as far as I'm aware.

You can find the actual definitions for those words here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

If you would like to clarify what you meant please do so next round.

Additionally, you have no proof that you are equal because you can do addition as well as subtraction.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

my hand is equal where it is, that is where it is currently at

is(equal)

how can you add without a cause?
Inventorkid

Con

You've addressed none of my arguments, you simply restate that your hand is currently in front of you, according to your made up definitions of the words, so my point still stands.

As for the second paragraph of your argument, it is completely incomprehensible, so I will not comment on it.

Your third paragraph poses the question "How can you add without a cause" which is completely unrelated to my arguments nor does it help you prove yours, so my points still stand.

Remember that you have the full BoP, you have to prove these things in order to win the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

im saying where im holding my hand is equal, where I can move it to is plus.. cause and effect=Logic

how can I move my hand from where it is without adding and retracting?

adding is retracting, and retracting is adding
Inventorkid

Con

You still have no proof for any of your statements, you have the full burden of proof, yet you have shown no evidence for any of your claims.

You pose the question "How can I move my hand from where it is without adding and retracting?", which does not help prove your point, it even assumes that your made up definitions are true.

Again, you make up a brand new definition making antonyms into synonyms. The two words being adding and retracting.




Sources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

how can you give a soda without taking a soda from somewhere
Inventorkid

Con

Again like most of your previous arguments, this has nothing to do with anything, you simply pose the question "How can you give a soda without taking a soda from somewhere?" which is completely irrelevant and does not help prove your point.

I am not denying that to give something you must have acquired it from somewhere, if that was what you were thinking.

Next round is your final chance to fullfill you BoP.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

it means you cant add without retracting, there is no effect without cause. you cant move your finger, without adding an retracting
Inventorkid

Con

This debate now ends with you making more claims without even attempting to fulfill BoP, I warned you in previous rounds that this would happen but let's look over your closing arguments.

"It means you can't add without retracting." Please give proof of this claim please?
"There is no effect without cause." Again, please give proof before or after making the claim.
You can't move your finger without adding and retracting." Once again, provide proof of this claim.

I cannot even begin to try and debate you because you were too busy making claims and not even trying to fulfill BoP, if you would like to try and fulfill BoP in another debate with me, feel free to challenge me to a debate.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
logic is absolute not phil and sophy
Posted by Inventorkid 2 years ago
Inventorkid
Challenge me to a debate if you want to get into your pseudo-philosophical stuff again.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
why is an equation true. if I have 1 pencil in my hand, and put another pencil in it, then I have 2 is true, so 1+1=2

1 is defined by something or everything
Posted by Inventorkid 2 years ago
Inventorkid
No, I can't understand you because nobody can, you're not smarter because you make everything you say incomprehensible.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
you tried to understand what im saying, no debate here

how can you move your finger without adding and retracting
Posted by Inventorkid 2 years ago
Inventorkid
Challenge me to a new debate if you want to try again, not a sub-debate in the comments.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
the proof is your cant move your finger without adding and retracting :)
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
maybe
Posted by Inventorkid 2 years ago
Inventorkid
Are you deliberately confusing so that you can sound like a philosopher? Because you're just incomprehensible most of the time.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
no. cause and effect is plus and minus, equal is logic

god is proven false by a first cause being impossible, you can not give, without taking

a cause that didn't cause anything is not a cause, therefore a first cause would be cause by a cause that is not a cause

so a first cause Is impossible, as any cause is caused by another cause

god is false
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
vi_spexInventorkidTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout. S&G - Con. Pro had several spelling errors throughout this debate, whereas Con had nowhere near as much. Arguments - Con. Pro completely failed to affirm the resolution by failing to maintain the BOP. Pro also presented subjective definitions that he seemed to create himself whereas Con presented definitions commonly accepted by society. Overall, Pro failed to perform well in his arguments whereas Con effectively rebutted all claims raised. Sources - Con. Pro failed to utilize sources in this debate whereas Con did. Clear win for Con.