The Instigator
abstractposters
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
drafterman
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

P1: All Time is of the Essence; P2: All Essence Precedes Existence; C: All Existence Precedes Time

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
drafterman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,307 times Debate No: 24954
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (44)
Votes (2)

 

abstractposters

Pro

I am arguing that the below argument and the equivalent title make up a valid syllogism.

Premise 1: all Space-Time is of the Essence (timing and meeting all the deadlines are essential and required for the end is near)

Premise 2: all Essence Precedes Existence (before something can exist it must exist in the mind of a creator)

Conclusion: all Existence precedes Space-Time (the mind of a creator precedes the universe)

Let's have at it!

REFERENCES:
1. Time is of the Essence: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com...
2. Essence Precedes Existence: http://faculty.smu.edu...
drafterman

Con

If Space-Time is of the Essence and Essence precedes Existence, then Space-Time Precedes Existence, not the other way around.

The End. Thanks for playing. Come again.
Debate Round No. 1
abstractposters

Pro

genetic fallacy example: arguing that a conclusion couldn't possibly be valid because it's established from fallacious premises

I am not denying I used two different meanings. My argument is 'fallacious' in the sense of equivocation and the one the Con has brought to light, although the Con did not state what that fallacy is, but just presents an invalid argument. The argument of the Con is indeed invalid in more than one sense.  Observable is that ADT_Clone and Drafterman are using the genetic fallacy, which the definition of is denial (ADT_Clone is in denial) of an argument by explaining the origins (genus) of a belief, rather than attacking the rational basis for supporting it. He is explaining the origins of Aristotelian logic, rather than the rational basis (which has been covered in my other debate for ADT_Clone to rebuke) for supporting it.

A subject/predicate division is less fundamental than a subject/assertion division. Having established this I will not present it here. (probably in the next round, however) The conclusion is that Aristotelian Logic has been compromised. By explaining the argument as Aristotelian Logic and drawing a conclusion based on this is not attacking the rational basis of my argument. My rational basis is on a better logic which has since the ancient times of Aristotle been adequately established.

ADT_Clone states: "2. I never implied that "ALL arguments with fallacious premises are invalid""

I shall prove him wrong with the following.

ADT_Clone states: "[abstractposters] thinks he can use logic in any way he seems fit, by treating words as classes, ignoring their meaning, putting them in a logical argument as classes, then treating them as words again.

I have explained to ADT_Clone that I haven't used logic in any such inferior way, but only a superior way. ADT_Clones above argument is inferior. What meaning of words have I ignored? How does one putting words in a logical argument as classes (whatever that means) imply equivocation is sufficient to render it invalid? (begging the question)

P: All arguments that use equivocation are fallacious.
P: All arguments by abstractposters (just the debate topic) use equivocation.
C: All arguments by abstractposters (just the debate topic) are fallacious.

The first premise is false rendering his conclusion (which he denies to have drawn) false.

Unless ADT_Clone can explain, using the logic of modern thinkers, why ALL arguments using equivocation are false, he is incorrect and begging the question.

Unless Drafterman can explain, using the logic of modern thinkers, why ALL arguments using (whatever that fallacy was, excluded middle or something along those lines) are false, he is incorrect and begging the question.

REMEMBER: Both deductive and inductive arguments may contain
fallacies; if they do, they are either unsound or uncogent, depending on the kind
of argument. Conversely, if an argument is unsound or uncogent, it has one or more
false premises or it contains a fallacy (or both).

No premise I present is false, therefore it 'contains' fallacies. (The only option.)
drafterman

Con

You're Wrong. Reason #1 - Equivocation

Pro:

"I am arguing that the below argument and the equivalent title make up a valid syllogism."

"I am not denying I used two different meanings."

Equivocation is often expressed in the Fallacy of the Four Terms[1]:

A categorical syllogism is, by definition, an argument with three categorical terms. "Term" is to be understood in a semantic sense, as opposed to the syntactic sense of "word" or "phrase". In other words, it is the meaning of the words that is important. So, two different words with the same meaning are the same term, and the same word occurring twice with different meanings is two distinct terms. An argument commits the Four Term Fallacy which appears to have the form of a validating categorical syllogism, but has four terms.

Pro has admitted to using two different meanings which, via above, means two different terms. The syllogism is, therefore, invalid, since all valid syllogisms must only have three terms. Since Pro is explicitly arguing the validity of the argument (rather than the truth of the conclusion), this is entirely relevant to the matter at hand.

You're Wrong. Reason #2 - I'm doing what now?

Pro has accused me of relying on the genetic fallacy, that a conclusion is false because it is established from fallacious premises. I never said the premises were invalid. Rather, I used those premises, as is, to demonstrate that they actually entail a conclusion that is the opposite of the conclusion presented by Pro.

A valid argument must produce a true conclusion if the premises are true. I demonstrated in Round 1 that, if the premises are true, a different conclusion is entailed. Thus, the argument is invalid.

You're very, very, very, confused.

I'm not ADT_Clone. I am Drafterman. You are not debating against ADT_Clone, you are debating with me, Drafterman. I have not referred to, relied upon, restated, or affirmed anything said by ADT_Clone. Whatever your issue is with ADT_Clone, it is irrelevant to the argument unless I, Drafterman, make those same arguments.

The comments are not part of the debate. They are comments and nothing more. They are external and outside the boundaries of the debate. The only think in scope is what is posted in the Rounds, the actual arguments.

I'd kindly ask you to respond to what I, and only I, have said, and only that which has been said within the boundaries of this debate.

[1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
Debate Round No. 2
abstractposters

Pro

Drafterman states: If Space-Time is of the Essence and Essence precedes Existence, then Space-Time Precedes Existence, not the other way around.

As in . . . I've got the subjects in the conclusion in reverse.

Drafterman also states: The End. Thanks for playing. Come again.

But as I have shown he may conclude that my conclusion is unsound or uncogent. If it is unsound. It is still a valid deductive argument.

If it uncogent it is an inductive argument, which can be weak or strong.

My claim is that it is valid and so draftermans options are 1: to prove it UNCOGOGENT Tha tha tha that's all folks.

If an argument is uncogent, it has one or more
false premises or it contains a fallacy (or both)

Both my premises are true.
It cannot be uncogent.

Drafterman uses the appeal to authority fallacy.
The reference is to a site explaining the aristotelian definition of syllogism.
as i have said: aristotelian logic has become obsolete and a new meaning has been derived in his coinage of the term syllogism.

References: The Principles of Mathematics by Bertrand Russell p. 457 !!!

http://books.google.com...

Here he explains the advances in logic and states that they are not reducible to syllogism.
My argument has reduced such advances to this one syllogism and no other, therefore giving new meaning to syllogism. A stipulative definition. Not a lexical definition, which reports the meaning a word already has in a language.
New meaning given to a word can be neither neither true nor false.

That was rude of me to refer to a commentor in the debate. I am sorry and forgive me.
drafterman

Con

Pro:

"But as I have shown he may conclude that my conclusion is unsound or uncogent. If it is unsound. It is still a valid deductive argument."

I never concluded that the conclusion is unsound or uncogent. I concluded that the argument doesn't entail the conclusion provided by Pro. If the premises do not entail the conclusion, then, by definition, it is invalid:

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.[1]

The conclusion entailed by the premises is "Space-Time precedes Existence." This is contradictory to the conclusion provided by pro, "Existence precedes Space-Time." Ergo, the provided argument is invalid. I stated this in the previous round, which Pro did not rebut. I state it again.

Argument from Authority?

Pro accuses me of comitting an argument of authority, then commits one himself. Essentially, he says Aristotle is wrong because Bertrand Russell says so. In fact, both components of thise are false.

First, Aristotle defined what a syllogism is. To refer to this definition is not an appeal to authority. No more so is it to accuse Pro of an appeal to authority by referencing the existing definitoins of this terms (Time is of the essence; Essence precedes existence).

Second, Bertrand Russell didn't invalidate the syllogistic form. If he did, and Pro wishes to invoke Bertrand, then Pro refutes his own argument. But he didn't. What Russell said was:

"But now, thanks mainly to the mathematical logicians, formal logic is enriched by several forms of reasoning not reducible to the syllogism..."[2]

What Russell was saying was that formal logic and mathematics was bigger than syllogisms, not that syllogisms were completely invalid. Regardless, you are, in fact, using a syllogism, ergo the rules pertaining to syllogisms apply.

Third, the scope of Russell's statement was about formal logic nor mathematics neither of which you've invoked.

Arbitrary Semantics

If you had wished to use a non-standard definition of syllogism, as you imply ("giving new meaning to syllogism") then your opportunity to do so was in Round 1. By default, common and accepted definitions of words and terms are in effect unless explicitly changed by one part or the other before the debate actually begins. You can't just arbitrarily decide to change the definition of the word mid-debate.

Perhaps you always intended to use such a definition. However, did you really expect that anyone else would know that if you didn't explicitly say so? No. The bait and switch has failed, we are sticking to accepted definitions, if only because you have only referred to using a "new meaning" and have yet to explain what that is.

[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...
[2] http://books.google.com...
Debate Round No. 3
abstractposters

Pro

I like the title of Drafterman's opinion.

ARBITRARY SEMANTICS (which his are, not mine, I put my two cents in first)

My two cents are (1) Draftersman uses a genetic fallacy.

It is implied by genetic fallacy that one is in denial. If drafterman had admitted such a fallacy to himself (which is the aristotelian method) he would conclude that Aristotle's definition of syllogism must be implied as obsolete as well, being included in the class Aristotlean Logic.

New meaning was implied all along.

Drafterman says: Essentially, he says Aristotle is wrong because Bertrand Russell says so.

This is a red herring. A distortion of my argument.

Math says so! It should be noted that math is math as distinct from language. In Aristotle's time the math had the same authority as it does today. It is a universal term despite cultural differences.

(2) My opponent's appeal to authority occurs not because he goes to aristotle the person but because he goes to aristotelian logic, which as I said, has become obsolete.

A subject/predicate division is less fundamental than a subject/assertion division.

Classes (subject and predicate) cannot be varied. Let's consider the assertion ‘is a valid syllogism'. To make the assertion become a class we simply drop the verb ‘is' or the equivalent ‘to be', just as my opponent has done. The assertion then becomes the class ‘valid syllogisms' which is not variable. Unless my opponent can justify himself in dropping the verb, and thus twisting my argument into one based on 'valid syllogisms' over 'IS A VALID SYLLOGISM', his argument should not be considered as relevant to the debate, because nowhere have I implied that an ‘IS A VALID SYLLOGISM' is to be based on classes but merely the word syllogism, by itself, has new meaning.
drafterman

Con

Rebuttals

Pro:

"My two cents are (1) Draftersman uses a genetic fallacy."

"genetic fallacy example: arguing that a conclusion couldn't possibly be valid because it's established from fallacious premises"

Again, and for the record: I am not arguing that the conclusion is false. I am arguing that it doesn't follow from the premises. Neither have I said that the premises are fallacious.

Pro:

"New meaning was implied all along."

I disagree. You may have intended new meaning, but that is not what was was implied, nor what could reasonably be inferred. You presented what you called a "syllogism" and its structure was that of a classical Aristotlean syllogism. By all accounts, and lacking any statement to the contrary, there should have been no expectation for it to be treated as anything other than a syllogism.

Furthermore, while you continue to assert "new meaning" you have failed to yet provide what this new meaning is. It is currently Round 4 in the debate while such deviations from the norm belong at the beginning.

Pro:

"(2) My opponent's appeal to authority occurs not because he goes to aristotle the person but because he goes to aristotelian logic, which as I said, has become obsolete."

Obsolete in the sense that it may have been superceded and dominated by more advanced forms of logic. However, I disagree that it is obsolete in the sense that it can't be used anymore. Based on the quotes I provided from the source you provided, Russell simply indicated that Aristotlean syllogisms are insufficient, not that they are wrong.

In any event, what you provided was a syllogism in the classical Aristoltean sense. So if it is obsolete, then you concede your own argument.

----

Your last paragraph is little more than further wordplay. Even if I concede this point, you have still failed to address my original argument, explained in Round 2, and repeated again in Round 3. I reiterate:

The conclusion entailed by the premises is "Space-Time precedes Existence." This is contradictory to the conclusion provided by pro, "Existence precedes Space-Time." Ergo, the provided argument is invalid. I stated this in the previous round, which Pro did not rebut. I state it again.

Nothing you've said refutes or even acknowledges that I made this argument. Around these parts that's considered a concession.
Debate Round No. 4
abstractposters

Pro


Drafterman has failed to adequately define concession. I’m sorry I do not understand? Does Drafterman want from me a grant of my land in return for his intellectual services? That's the caveman lawyer fallacy. Drafterman did say “around these parts” referring to our territory. Drafterman wants my property some of the time. Drafterman might be threatening me!Argumentum ad Baculum! I’m undecided as to what Drafterman means by concession. Drafterman’s claim is irrelevant. Drafterman’s “categorical syllogism” interpretation was never implied by the thesis statement of this debate. Another form of syllogism Aristotle coined was “practical syllogism”. Although Drafterman has presented one valid argument it does not pertain to this debate, i.e. my argument; rather, his valid argument pertains to the debate in which he misconstrues my practical syllogism with a categorical syllogism, and renders that categorical syllogism false. The categorical syllogism Drafterman presents is neither true nor false. There are exactly 256 distinct forms of categorical syllogism: 4 kinds of major premise multiplied by 4 kinds of minor premise multiplied by 4 kinds of conclusion multiplied by 4 relative positions of the middle term. No categorical syllogism’s are practical syllogism’s. Therefore his valid deductive categorical syllogism does not imply inclusion to my practickle syllogism. The syllogism originates with Aristotle, of course, and he presents the fact in Nichomachean Ethics, that the practical syllogism does not consist of at least three propositions. The major premise and a minor premise lead to a practical conclusion or what is simply an action or verb or intention or command or judgment or SOMETHING NEITHER TRUE NOR FALSE or existence and nonexistence or the assertion ‘constitutes a valid syllogism’---for example. Practical syllogisms are only called syllogisms analogically but the one practical syllogism I have presented happens to exist. Observable is that Drafterman is using the genetic fallacy, which the definition of is denial (Drafterman was or sometimes is still in denial) by explaining the origins (genus---Aristotelian) of a belief in categorical syllogisms, rather than attacking the rational basis for supporting my argument---a practical syllogism. The rational basis for supporting my practical syllogism goes as follows:



Drafterman states: “I used those premises [the equivalent, as in our, major and minor premises], as is, to demonstrate that they actually entail a conclusion [again implied as Categorical, but not to begin with] that is the opposite of the conclusion presented by Pro.



Why did Drafterman not state this when Drafterman presented his first round? After all, time is of the essence is true. He is begging the question. That is, Drafterman creates the illusion that inadequate premises [the conclusions we present are opposites or even time is of the essence is not true] provide adequate support for that conclusion by leaving out some key premise(s) and by restating the conclusion as a premise.The Latin name for this fallacy, petitio principii, means ‘‘request for the source of the truth"



Please note: I implied Drafterman’s premise to be ‘time is not of the essence’ because Drafterman did not present the statement I am using these premises to demonstate they are valid for the reason of: what? Today is opposite day? Thaaaaanks. Why? That would beg the question.




Let’s consider the assertion ‘constitutes a valid syllogism’ very closely, paying attention to that word ‘constitutes’. We can see that by itself ‘constitutes a valid syllogism’ can be neither true nor false. After all, what would it be that ‘constitutes a valid syllogism’? The original proposition (thesis statement), however, also has a subject, thus making the proposition itself true or false. It is what is that ‘constitutes a valid syllogism.’ There must be an answer. My claim is that the proposition I present is true and is the only one. As the anterior of the 1st round I have explained the following as my entire argument: the syllogism that modifies the noun ‘argument’ I have presented as constituting a ‘VALID’ syllogism, in particular. Valid is a quality of the syllogism, that is practically. The reason was time is of the essence and the essence (the very freedom of consciousness) precedes the existence of the present truth.



REFERENCES: Wikipedia’s Article Titled ‘Practical Syllogism’ http://en.wikipedia.org...



The idea that any deductive argument having actually true premises and a false


conclusion is invalid may be the most important point in all of deductive logic. The


entire system of deductive logic would be quite useless if it accepted as valid ANY


inferential process by which a person could start with truth in the premises and arrive


at falsity in the conclusion.



God exists implies deductive logic is inferior in virtue of the implication if God exists is false (the most important point in all deductive logic), then there would be no reason to use deductive logic. At least the two types of syllogism have similar images.


drafterman

Con

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by abstractposters 2 years ago
abstractposters
I never said this argument or debate (which has been created by me) is not false, as opposed to true. I merely said this debate is a valid syllogism. To be unclear would be unjust is never true nor false, rather . . . valid.
Posted by ADT_Clone 2 years ago
ADT_Clone
"A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." [1]

"The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
*Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
*Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
*Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
*Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
*Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position."

Abstractposters, all you do is commit straw-man fallacies. I hope you realise that, as straw-men do not win an argument.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by abstractposters 2 years ago
abstractposters
Drafterman's milkshakes bring all the boys to 'the yard'.
Posted by drafterman 2 years ago
drafterman
You're crazier than a basket of weasels.
Posted by abstractposters 2 years ago
abstractposters
Through the freedom belonging to Drafterman, immorally Drafterman is testing me.
This statement is sufficient (in-myself) and/o insufficient in (Drafterman).
Posted by abstractposters 2 years ago
abstractposters
Although I have not stated I am a professional, I have now implied it?
Posted by drafterman 2 years ago
drafterman
That question makes no sense to me. Seek professional help.
Posted by abstractposters 2 years ago
abstractposters
Why would I have acted (for example: pointing it out to you) if I hadn't concluded my first debate is valid?
Posted by drafterman 2 years ago
drafterman
If we want to get technical, the first premise of a syllogism should be the major premise, containing a universal. In this sense, essence precedes existence is the universal and should have been the first, major, premise.

Regardless, practica syllogisms end in action, not words. Yours did not.
Posted by abstractposters 2 years ago
abstractposters
[My first and and or true thesis statement (material) regarding only my first debate (MAJOR PREMISE)] and [our 2nd true thesis-statement (formal) regarding our second debate (MINOR PREMISE) comprise a valid practical syllogism.] You cannot justify your immorality.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 2 years ago
KeytarHero
abstractpostersdraftermanTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was invalid, as in the conclusion didn't naturally follow from the premises. As Con showed, Pro concluded the opposite of what the conclusion should have been, thus rendering the argument invalid. To say nothing of the equivocation that Pro's argument was guilty of.
Vote Placed by t-man 2 years ago
t-man
abstractpostersdraftermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made no sense