All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

# Not All Infinite Regresses Are Illogical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 12/15/2013 Category: Philosophy Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 1,215 times Debate No: 42394
Debate Rounds (4)

8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by STAGIESTCOSINE 3 years ago
That's is right, Pros original proposition was correct - not all infinite regressions are illogical. However, it is clear, he based his agument around faulty logic, and upon on an idea that all truth is an infinite regress, which he failed to prove (because it is not).

Pro's Proposition = Correct
Pro's Argument = Well formulated and written
Pro's Basis for Argument = TOTALLY INCORRECT
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
I agree that Pro failed in what he was doing, as in proving that truth is all infinite regresses, but he was able to provide one valid potential infinite about truths, although I think his argument itself for all truths being infinite regresses is ludicrous if not ridiculous. I mentioned that in my BoP, but I guess I wasn't clear enough. In simpler words, what he was set to prove is different from what he had to prove. Hence, if he satisfies the BoP mentioned in his resolution and opening statement, then he wins the arguments regardless if what he was set to prove turned out to be a catastrophe.

The resolution of the debate is "Not All Infinite Regresses Are Illogical." Hence, Pro had to provide one infinite regress. I consider his "It is true that this is true" to be a potential infinite regress. As long as that is valid, Pro deserves the arguments for satisfying the resolution of the debate. I don't care much about how his main argument fails given that his BoP was simply to provide an infinite regress and he chose the wrong method to do that but was able to give one potential infinite regress. If the resolution was "all truths are infinite regresses", I would have had a different say, of course.
Posted by STAGIESTCOSINE 3 years ago
Posted by STAGIESTCOSINE 3 years ago
The concept of an infinite regress is quite rational (however following that kind of enquiry to determine the truth is absurd).

Instead it seemed Pro used wordplay"... It"s silly to say "it"s true that it"s red because it"s true that it"s red because it"s true that it"s true that its true that it is red"ad infintum. Not "All Truth" requires that level quantification, implying it does is wordplay.

Pro saying if something is True, then it"s True that it is True" to infinity is not the same as saying:

"P1: It is not illogical for an event to precede an event," " P2: it is not illogical to have an infinite number of events"

Pro set out to prove that not all infinite regresses were illogical; it should have been quite easy to do.
However, he chose to base his argument upon simple "IQ test logic" and failed. I don"t understand how you voted for Pro for Argument. I explained quite how his argument was flawed.....

"Some truth must not be illogical, but logically necessary. All truth entails an infinite regress. Therefore, not all infinite regresses are illogical".

1) The first sentence is nonsense (it says "some truth is logical, but logically necessary").
2) The second sentence (an untrue statement) required proof which Pro failed to provide.
I translated pro"s argument down to the crux:

all squigs (truths) are rams (infinite regresses).
some squigs (truths) are logical and some sguigs (truths) are illogical
proving not all rams (infinite regresses) are illogical.

This kind of simple reasoning is fine and correct. However, it"s based on the proposition that all squigs (truths) are rams (infinite regresses)""and Pro, did not prove this.

It"s clear that not all infinite regresses are illogical, and that, Pro chose the wrong path to debate so.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
RFD

To speak of an infinite regress, there needs to be a differentiation between a potential and an actual infinite which was not provided in this debate. Pro used a potential infinite "if something is true, it must be true that it is true" to address all cases of infinite regress when that is logically fallacious as it doesn't deal with actual infinite regresses. NONETHELESS, his BoP was simply to provide one infinite regress that is not illogical according to the resolution of this debate. Pro could have simply used a deductive logical argument saying, "P1: It is not illogical for an event to precede an event," " P2: it is not illogical to have an infinite number of events" , conclusion: "It is not illogical to have an infinite regression among those events." This proves that one infinite regress is not illogical, therefore not all infinite regresses are illogical. But he used a potential infinite, which is also a good argument to prove that. While Con simply called this "wordplay," when It deals with prepositional logic so I don't see how Pro's statement lacks linguistic hygiene nor was I shown how. Arguments go to Pro.

Pro forfeited a round. Conduct goes to Con.

This was an interesting read. I thank the two participants.
Posted by STAGIESTCOSINE 3 years ago
I may have trouble replying, I'll try my best, it's Christmas though (I'm already drinking and having fun with friends and family) - it was silly of me joining a debate at this time of year (I'd hoped it would have finished by now but your forfeit of round two made that impossible, oh well). If I have time I'll read your reply and type a response, if not, then have a great Christmas!!
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Ah crap I missed the deadline. I'll still respond in my next round; I don't forfeit the whole debate.
Posted by Eitan_Zohar 3 years ago
How about a basic summary of what yer arguing?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.