The Instigator
wouren
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Royal_Flush
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Purely logical debates are impossble

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...
wouren
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 486 times Debate No: 70354
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

wouren

Pro

Can a flawed perspective be purely logical? The debate would resolve as soon as the thought experiment started. Debate is never reasonable by definition. Debate can be used to show a fault in logic, but if logic has no fault yet is wrong, that in itself is a contradiction.
Royal_Flush

Con

Interesting debate topic. I'll start off with a short response due to a short first post.

Both sides can simply apply their logic. If both arguments are completely logical, the debate will have both sides justifying the fact their logic is better. Going off Webster's Dictionary's definition, logic is "A proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something". That can be done for almost any perspective. Most opinions are not black and white, where one side has the right logical answer and the other is simply illogical. There are so many different perspectives one can take on something and they can use logic to justify it.
Debate Round No. 1
wouren

Pro

This is my first debate on this site.. It's cool that it's on the web so that responses are not pressed for time and sources must be cited. For my first debate ever here, I'm going to keep my points short.

According to Karl Popper on the subject of debates, "I may be wrong and you may be right and, by an effort, we may get nearer the truth," meaning that debates are the pursuit of the truth. Since debates are the pursuit of the truth, and the deductive , a purely logical debate would end in truth. The maximum length of any purely logical debate would be one exchange exchanges (if any) and if the incorrect person went first, he/she would immediately disprove him/herself.
Royal_Flush

Con

I'll keep mine short, since I'm a bit buy right now.

The problem with Pro's round 2 post is that it's all in black and white. The fact is, is that in so many different arguments there is no one logical answer. Two people can use completely flawless logic and have different opinions. If debate is the pursuit of truth, it is more often done to find which truth will produce the best results or is preferred by the audience and debaters. As long as both sides propose reasonable arguments the debate can be purely logical, even though the winner will be completely subjective.
Debate Round No. 2
wouren

Pro

I'm sorry about my last argument's sloppiness I will keep my argument short because (insert excuse here). : )

I think that the argument you are making has the flaw of simply stating the inverse of what I said with no further verification. In deductive reasoning, the answers are either true or false based on fundamental agreed assumptions (which we will call FAAs for ease of reading), or non-provable based on fundamental agreed assumptions (I think the next con argument should be about the non-provable scenario, wink wink). All FAAs will be traced back to nearly non-refutable information. Another argument I am going to make to get this out of the way is that even if all the FAAs cannot be used to create an answer, I want to make the point that FAAs may not be reliable in the first place and therefore the argument would not be PURELY logical. Another issue is that the point you are making implies that a completely logical presentation of the right answer can be rebutted with anything completely logical. If you can show me that this can happen, your side is still defensible. If you cannot, it is not. Agreed?
Royal_Flush

Con

Royal_Flush forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
wouren

Pro

Don't have much to add here.
Royal_Flush

Con

Royal_Flush forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
wouren

Pro

I was really enjoying this debate, and I hope you keep participating. If you don't, I understand. Cheers.
Royal_Flush

Con

Royal_Flush forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by wouren 2 years ago
wouren
As Dr. House always said: "Speculation makes a speck out of you and... some guy named 'Lation.' Which really doesn't affect me at all."
Posted by flewk 2 years ago
flewk
Logic is based on underlying assumptions and data.

A complete set of data is impossible. There is only sampling.

Assumptions generally fudge things up.
Posted by wouren 2 years ago
wouren
You are right. I used proof to figure this out, but I wanted to engage in some sweet sweet recursive thinking.
P.S. The converse can be said when you consider who is right. If I am right, then the debate could illogical. If the debate could be illogical, Con could be proved right. If con was right. If Con is right, on the other hand, it technically proves nothing because the debate might be illogical.
Posted by ChandanB 2 years ago
ChandanB
If Pro can prove that purely logical debates are impossible,that means the victory for Pro wasnt through a purely logical manner. If Pro losses, it means pro lost in a purely logical manner. Pro, you seeing where this ends??
Posted by DarthVitiosus 2 years ago
DarthVitiosus
Pro don't fail the cause!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
wourenRoyal_FlushTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeture