The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
salam.morcos
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Wet Grass Is Evidence Of Rain

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 3 votes the winner is...
salam.morcos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,379 times Debate No: 77788
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (3)

 

MagicAintReal

Con

Resolution
Wet grass is evidence of rain.

Pro
Has 30,000 characters and the burden of proof to demonstrate that wet grass is evidence of rain and refute Con.

Con
Has only 20,000 characters to refute Pro.

*There are no rounds, just 3 sets of 10,000 characters, so there are no round rules...use your characters as you choose to meet your burden of proof.

Pro Wins
If we accept the resolution.

Con Wins
If we reject the resolution.

Definitions
*Can be changed in comments section if both Pro and Con agree.
*By posting your first argument, you agree to the given definitions.

wet
- covered or saturated with water or another liquid.

grass - vegetation consisting of typically short plants with long narrow leaves cultivated on lawns

evidence - facts that indicate a particular proposition is likely true

rain - moisture condensed from the atmosphere that falls visibly in separate drops

May the best argument win.
salam.morcos

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Con

Wet grass is not evidence of rain, because:
1. it can rain and the grass can remain dry
2. evidence of a category is not evidence of a particular item in the category
3. a touchdown is not evidence of a touchdown pass

Rain is a meteorological event that requires falling moisture condensed from the atmosphere.

Sure, one result of rain is that grass may be wet, but one result of rain is that grass may not be wet.
It's called Virga.
http://glossary.ametsoc.org...

Virga is a meteorological event where condensed moisture falls from the atmosphere and evaporates before it hits the ground, thus never making the ground wet.

So another result of rain is grass not covered in liquid...dry grass

Would you say that dry grass is evidence of rain?
No?
Then you shouldn't think that wet grass is evidence of rain, simply because wet grass is one result of rain.
As shown, one result of rain (virga) is dry grass, and we wouldn't ever say that dry grass is evidence of rain...would we?

Even so, just because a result is a possibility of a particular cause, does not mean the result's occurrence is evidence of that particular cause.

Evidence, per the definitions given, indicates a proposition to likely be true.

Wet grass indicates a category of "wet grass causes" to likely be true.
In "wet grass causes," one could find:
1. sprinklers
2. spilled water
3. urine
4. melted snow
5. pool water overflow
6. rain
Wet, per the definitions given, means covered in any liquid, so the category for "wet grass causes" could be greatly expanded by oil, gasoline, various acids, salt water, etc...

But let's stick with only these six possible "wet grass causes."

If we take wet grass as evidence of the category "wet grass causes", we must say that this evidence, per the definition, makes this category likely true.

Since wet grass is not evidence of rain, just a category including rain, all possible causes of wet grass are equally likely without further evidence.
So let's divide 100% of this likelihood, derived from the evidence (wet grass), among all of the particular items in the category of "wet grass causes"
1. sprinkler 16.66%
2. spilled water 16.66%
3. urine 16.66%
4. melted snow 16.66%
5. pool water overflow 16.66%
6. rain 16.66%

So you see, only naming 6 possible "wet grass causes," rain is then 16.6% likely as the cause.
See how many more "wet grass causes" you can add to the category, and watch the likelihood of rain decrease.

If evidence shows things to likely be true, then why does wet grass only yield less than a 16% chance of rain to be the cause of the wet grass?

That's because wet grass is evidence of a category of causes, not evidence of a particular cause.

Think of it this way.

Is a touchdown evidence of a touchdown pass?
No, because there are other causes of touchdowns besides a touchdown pass.
A touchdown is evidence of a category of "touchdown causes"

Sure, one result of a touchdown pass is in fact a touchdown, but just knowing that a touchdown was scored, indicates no particular type of touchdown.

Touchdown Causes
1. touchdown pass
2. touchdown run
3. fumble recovery for a touchdown
4. kick return for a touchdown
5. punt return for a touchdown
6. interception for a touchdown

So let's say there were a touchdown scored!
Then the evidence of this touchdown points to...
ONE of the six touchdown causes, each with a 16.6% chance of being likely the cause.
None of them are individually likely at 16.6%, so a touchdown cannot be evidence of a particular cause if it only yields a 16.6% likelihood for each cause.

I'll ask Pro:
1. Is dry grass evidence of rain?
2. Is evidence only for a category therefore a likelihood for a particular item in that category?
3. Is a touchdown evidence of a touchdown pass?
salam.morcos

Pro

I want to thank my opponent for instigating this debate. It rained on me in Montreal, so I learned all what I need to know to defend the resolution.

My opponent seems to argue that this resolution is basically a "Rain of the Gaps" argument, which is similar to God of the Gaps argument [1]. While I also hate these types of arguments, my opponent falls short here.

Framework

What I have to demonstrate in this debate, is to prove that wet grass is evidence for the existence of rain. More specifically, I have to demonstrate that wet grass is evidence of the rain phenomenon.

As Con has explained, evidence means "a particular proposition is likely true". It doesn't mean that it is necessarily true, extremely probable or most likely true. All I need to justify is that it's more likely than not (i.e. greater than 50% probability).

Wet grass clearly consists of a) Grass and b) Wetness. I would successfully fulfill my BoP (Burden of Proof) if I am able to prove that even one of those two components is evidence of rain.

Grass

Rain is a major component of the water cycle and is responsible for depositing most of the fresh water on Earth [2]. The water cycle is essential for the maintenance of most life and ecosystems on the planet [3]. In other words, without the water cycle, it is most likely that all life, including plants and grass would have never existed. Therefore it follows necessarily and logically that that the existence of grass (and any form of life) is evidence for the existence of rain. Case closed.

Wetness

I will prove my resolution by using the law of contradiction. Let's assume that the water cycle is broken and there is no rain. If that's the case, then most of the water would have either remained in the salty oceans, remained deep inside the Earth or evaporated in the atmosphere. But if the grass is somehow wet, then there is water on land, and that is evident that the water cycle is not broken. Therefore, wetness on grass is evidence that rain exists.


Rebuttal

Con argues that "It can rain and the grass can remain dry".
I don't have an issue with this statement. Con is arguing that because "it can rain, and the grass remains dry", then it follows that "wet grass is not evidence of rain". But that's non-sequitur. Con's argument would only be valid if "It can rain and the grass remains always dry or almost never gets wet", but that's definitely not the case.

Con then says if "Dry grass is evidence of rain?" (sic), and I answer yes. I've explained that before.

Con then does a probability calculation to show that the probability that rain caused the wet grass is 16.67%. I really laughed when I saw that urine has an equal chance like rain… But Con doesn't understand that his calculations only apply to uniform distributions [5] (i.e. each possible outcome has an equal probability). It's like saying that the probability of Hillary Clinton's to win the Democratic nomination for President in 2016 is 1/6 = 16.67%, but her actual chances are 57.0% at the time of this posting, which means that she is more likely to win the Democratic nomination [4].

To turn this point against Con, there is actually evidence that rain is the most likely cause of wet grass. I've already shown before that rain deposits most of the fresh water on Earth [2]. So it's more likely than not that wet grass was caused by rain, than anything else (especially urine!).

Conclusion

I've demonstrated that grass most likely wouldn't have existed in the first place without rain. Therefore grass by itself is evidence of rain.

I've also demonstrated that water most likely wouldn't exist on the surface of the earth if the water cycle is broken, and there was no rain. Water would have either remained in the oceans, deep in the soil or locked in the atmosphere. So the existence of wet grass is evidence that the water cycle is not broken and hence is evidence of rain.


Therefore I affirm. Over to Con!


Sources

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://www.boundless.com...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...(discrete)

Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Con

I must respond to Pro with a linguistics argument as they have committed an equivocation fallacy with respects to the word "rain," even though we agreed on the definitions beforehand.

Pro is using the word "rain" to mean the "substance of rainwater" (existence) instead of the event of "atmospheric moisture falling visibly" (occurrence).
The agreed definition in this debate is the EVENT of rain, not the SUBSTANCE of rainwater.
Attempting to prove the stative existence of a dynamic event, like rain, is flawed, nonsensical, and counter to the agreed definition of rain and its usage in the resolution. Boo Pro.

I'll be quick with the English lesson...

Stative verbs, like EXIST, exemplify a state of being not subject to duration.
Dynamic verbs, like OCCUR, exemplify a continued or progressive action on the part of the subject.

You can't use stative verbs, like exist, to exemplify dynamic events, like rain, because dynamic events have duration and thus are unexpressed by stative duration-less verbs.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Rain is a dynamic occurrence not subject to stative existence.

Would you cancel a party if rain exists?
No, you'd cancel a party if rain occurs.

Demonstrating rain, the dynamic occurrence, would require showing that "atmospheric moisture falling visibly" OCCURS.
Demonstrating rainwater, the stative substance, would require showing that "water" EXISTS.

rainwater - water that has fallen as or been obtained from rain...this is NOT an EVENT it's a SUBSTANCE.
https://www.google.com...

Unfortunately for Pro, this debate is about the EVENT of rain not the SUBSTANCE, rainwater, so we should be debating OCCURRENCE rather than EXISTENCE.

Ok...so "moisture falling visibly," is an event/occurrence not a substance/existence.

Pro is able to employ the equivocation fallacy, because "rain" is also colloquially used to refer to "rainwater," which is not an event, rather it is a substance called water.

But anyone who read the definitions that were agreed on before the debate can see that rain is an event of "atmospheric moisture falling visibly" which is dynamic and therefore not subject to exemplification by a stative verb like exist.

One can also see that the word "evidence" is agreed to show something PARTICULAR to be likely true.
Since we are talking about an occurrence--instead of an existence--and its relationship to wet grass, wet grass needs to show a PARTICULAR occurrence of rain to be likely true, not just that rain has occurred once in time. Remember, rain is dynamic.

Pro says "What I have to demonstrate in this debate, is to prove that wet grass is evidence for the EXISTENCE of rain."
Flawed.
Pro, you must prove that wet grass is evidence for the OCCURRENCE of rain relative to the wet grass.
Knowing the difference between stative and dynamic concepts illustrates this massive misstep by Pro.

So as such, Pro continues to demonstrate that water exists..."Therefore, wetness on grass is evidence that rain exists."

I hope readers understand what's going on here.
By saying that rain exists, Pro is by definition talking about water existing, not the meteorological occurrence of rain; rain is dynamic and therefore not subject to stative existence.

So Pro smuggles in his own definition of rain to make his burden of proof to prove water...which is pretty easy.
Pro is either being highly dishonest, or incredibly naive to the difference between stative and dynamic concepts.

Pro is wrong when he says "Wet grass clearly consists of a) Grass and b) Wetness. I would successfully fulfill my BoP (Burden of Proof) if I am able to prove that even one of those two components is evidence of rain."
Flawed.
This is called a fallacy of composition where the violator of the fallacy, Pro in this case, infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

So just demonstrating grass to be evidence of rain is not demonstrating that wet grass is evidence of rain.
Moreover, just demonstrating wetness to be evidence of rain is not demonstrating that wet grass is evidence of rain.

Sorry Pro, you're going to have to actually demonstrate a particular occurrence of rain being evidenced by wet grass, not just that grass exists, because water exists.

So far, Pro has demonstrated that grass, not wet grass (composition fallacy), exists, because water exists.

Pro also believes that dry grass is evidence of rain, because, again, Pro is using the word "rain" in place of the word "water," so that he can state that grass itself, dry or otherwise, is evidence of the existence of water since grass needs water, not an occurrence of rain.

I have grass plants in my house that have never experienced the occurrence of rain...how is it that they survive?
Furthermore, they have from time to time become wet from me spilling various liquids on them, yet it hasn't rained in my house ever.

Let me use an analogy to sum up Pro's flawed arguments.
Since Pro lives in Canada, it's likely they didn't really relate to my American football analogy, so let's try a more accepted American sport, baseball.

If we were trying to prove that a used baseball found in the outfield bleachers was evidence of a home run, we wouldn't need to demonstrate that unused baseballs exist.

Pro is proving the existence of unused baseballs (rainwater) rather than proving the occurrence of a home run (rain event).
Now, one cause of a used ball being in the outfield bleachers (wet grass) is that a home run (rain) occurred.
But showing that there would be no baseball game (water cycle) if there were no baseball (rainwater) is irrelevant to whether or not a home run (rain event) caused the used ball (wet grass) to end up in the outfield bleachers.

Instead, Pro should be showing that simply the used baseball in the bleachers (wet grass) is a result of an occurrence of a home run (rain event).

Pro also enjoys employing the logical fallacy affirming the consequent, specifically, confusion of necessity and sufficiency.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

The form of the fallacy is:
1. If P (grass), then Q (rain).
2. Q (rain).
3. Therefore P (grass).

A necessary condition (grass) must be there, but it alone does not provide sufficient cause for the occurrence of the event (rain). Only the sufficient grounds can do this. In other words, all of the necessary elements must be there.
http://www.txstate.edu...

Pro also commits the fallacy of the single cause, which is a reduction fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
Just like when Pro assumes there is a single cause (rain) of an outcome (wet grass) when in reality it may have been caused by a number of jointly sufficient causes like snow, urine, beer, or gasoline.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Pro also says giving all possibilities in a category of possible wet grass causes equal probability is "like saying that the probability of Hillary Clinton's to win the Democratic nomination for President in 2016 is 1/6 = 16.67%, but her actual chances are 57.0% at the time of this posting,"

Hey Pro, where do you think you get the 57% figure from...it wouldn't be from other evidence like polls would it?
Because with wet grass, all you have are possible candidates, there aren't any polls for a likely causer of the wet grass.

If the only evidence we had is that there will be an election and there are six candidates, then yes, the odds would be 1/6 for each candidate...there are no other pieces of evidence.
For this reason, when you have non discriminant evidence, like wet grass, you must assume that all possible causes have equal probability.

Finally, per the definition, "wet" means "covered in water or ANOTHER LIQUID"
This means that we could find grass covered in alcohol, or oil, or gasoline, or vinegar, or sulfuric acid, and Pro would claim that this is evidence of a particular occurrence of rain in relation to this wet grass.

Without explaining how a particular rain event lead to this grass's acquiring of alcohol to make it wet, Pro cannot therefore demonstrate that wet grass, covered in something that is not water based, was caused by a particular rain event.

So Pro
1. Knowing that "rain" is a dynamic concept, do you still wish to claim that it exists?
2. Do you understand the fallacy of composition that nullifies your claim that you only need to show grass OR wetness to be evidence of rain? You need to show WET GRASS to be evidence of a particular occurrence of rain.
3. So since another liquid besides water can make the grass wet, can you explain how a particular occurrence of rain is evidenced by grass covered in alcohol?
4. Please stop affirming the consequent, or committing reduction fallacies to make an indirect causation between rain being everywhere and a result of wet grass.
5. You have 10,000 characters to actually attempt the real resolution which would be to demonstrate that wet grass, alcohol covered or otherwise, is evidence that a particular occurrence of rain is responsible.

If you can get from a rain event to alcohol grass without using your fallacies, by all means please do.
salam.morcos

Pro

I want to thank my opponent for this debate. He's accusing me that I committed several logical fallacies! I love philosophy and will explain to the reader how all my opponent's arguments fall short.

Definition Battle

My opponent spent half of his last round accusing me that I've changed the definition. He alleges that I "smuggle[d] in [my] own definition of rain to make [my] burden of proof to prove water". But this is plainly false. The resolution clearly states that "Wet grass is evidence of rain" and rain is defined as "moisture condensed from the atmosphere that falls visibly in separate drops". Nowhere in the definition does it state that it's about 1) occurrence or 2) event or 3) dynamic or 4) rainwater…etc. Absolutely no where! It's Con who is redefining the resolution. So let's stick to the definition as stated in Round 1.

So the resolution can be written as such (strictly from the definition). "Wet grass is evidence of moisture condensed from the atmosphere that falls visibly in separate drops" My two contentions meet that definition clearly. When I prove that grass couldn't have existed without "moisture condensed from the atmosphere that falls visibly in separate drops", I therefore met the definition.

Con then talks about Stative and Dynamic verbs. The funny thing that the only verb in the resolution is "is". Rain is a noun. What Con is referring to are the new additional definitions that he provided of "exist" and "occur". It's the responsibility of the instigator to specify and clarify the resolution in Round 1. Changing the resolution based on what the instigator perceived it is not acceptable. My burden of proof is to affirm the resolution as it was defined in Round 1.

Proving that water exists? No…

Con challenges "By saying that rain exists, Pro is by definition talking about water existing, not the meteorological occurrence of rain"
Con's analysis is flawed. I never argued that my burden was to prove that water exists! Without rain and without grass, water may or may not exist. On Mars, there is no water, no grass and no wet grass. What I demonstrated was: The fact that there is water on the grass would have definitely not happened if rain didn't exist. To put it logically:

R: rain exists (moisture condensed from the atmosphere that falls visibly in separate drops)
W: water would have either remained in the salty oceans, remained deep inside the Earth or evaporated in the atmosphere
G: water on grass

P1: If ~R, W. (i.e. Without rain, water cycle would be broken and there would be no water on land - See Round 2)
P2: If W, ~G. (If all water away from land, there would be no water on grass)
P3: G (By definition, there is water on grass)
C1: ~W (From P2, P3)
C3: R (From P1, C1) (i.e. Rain exists)

Therefore I affirm the resolution.

Composition Fallacy? No…

Con argues that I commit the composition fallacy when I prove that grass also is evidence of rain, and that wetness is evidence of rain. Con's claim is false, and he doesn't understand the fallacy. The fallacy states that "one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole" [1]. For example, every cell in an elephant is small, so the elephant is small. But I don't commit this fallacy, and I'll explain it here.

Composition refers to the properties of parts (something is true of some part) and the properties of the whole. In the example of the elephant, "smallness" is a property of the cells, and it's fallacious to apply this property to the whole. But I didn't do that! I never said that Rain is not true of some part! That's absurd.

What I argued was:

P1: If wet grass exists, then grass exists.
P2: If grass exists, then rain exists. (See round 2)
P3: Wet grass exists (Definition)
C1: Grass exists (From P1, P3)
C2: Rain exists (From P2, C1)

There is no fallacy here. Therefore, I fulfill my BoP and affirm the resolution.

Baseball Analogy


I am from Canada, but I love the Blue Jays. So I do understand Baseball. And Con's analogy doesn't impact my arguments at all. First, his example fails to relate to my logic. His example allegorizes "home run" to "rain" and "baseball" to "rainwater"! What?! If home run was rain, then rainwater would be a baseball hit, not baseball. Rainwater would have to be "water". So the example is terrible!

Second, Con agrees that "one cause of a used ball being in the outfield bleachers (wet grass) is that a home run (rain) occurred". But this example is lacking! In my case, wet grass wouldn't and couldn't have existed without rain. However, outfield bleachers could very well exist if no home run ever existed. So this is another poor rebuttal.


Logical fallacy affirming the consequent? No…

Con argues that my argument follows this structure:

1. If P (grass), then Q (rain).
2. Q (rain).
3. Therefore P (grass).

That's not my argument. I didn't try to prove that grass exists! What non sense! My argument is like this:

1. If P (grass), then Q (rain).

2. P (grass).
3. Therefore Q (rain).

This is a valid logical argument!


Logical fallacy of the single cause? No…

Con argues that my argument that rain is the single cause. Where does he come up with this stuff? Grass requires many causes, including temperature, right soil, sunlight…etc. But what I did was prove that grass could not have ever existed without rain! So my argument doesn't commit such a fallacy. I stand by my argument.

Rebutting Con's new definition of the resolution


What happens if we accept Con's new definition? Would I lose or concede the debate? No. Even with Con's new definition, he still fails to fulfill his Burden of Proof. I'll explain below:

Con's only argument is that rain has 16.67% chance. His reasoning is that with the lack of evidence, the chance would be equal. His words: "then yes, the odds would be 1/6 for each candidate...there are no other pieces of evidence."


There are several major problems in Con's analogy:

1. Con's argument is undoubtedly an Argument from Ignorance [2]. Basically, "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)". This is similar to God of the Gaps arguments [3]. Basically, if we don't have enough data to know the likelihood of every possibility, then it's safe to assume that the possibility is equally distributed. That's fallacious.

I'll give an example. Humans can have sex with other humans, or can have sex with animals (bestiality [4]). Without evidence or stats, according to Con, it's safe to assume that humans are just as likely to have sex with an animal that with another human (50% chance).

Therefore, Con has failed to fulfill his Burden of Proof!

2. I've already demonstrated evidence that rain is the most likely cause. I've shown that rain deposits most of the fresh water on Earth [5]. Con failed to respond to this argument. It is only logical that grass is most likely to be covered with rain water, than other types of waters or liquids. I would also note that there are large areas with natural grass in forests and vast lands. The probability of urine, oil, beer in these areas is astronomically less that rain which "deposits most of the fresh water on Earth".

Please note that I don't have to prove that wet grass can only be caused by rain. I only have to demonstrate that the likely cause of wetness is rain. Since most of the water deposited on Earth (sorry to be repetitive) is rain, the most likely cause of wet grass is therefore rain.

With Con failing to fulfill his BoP, and me turning this argument against him, I affirm the resolution. Please vote Pro.

Thank you Con for this debate.

Sources

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...


Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CodingSource 1 year ago
CodingSource
I don't really think. Dew is one of the reasons why.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Proving_a_Negative// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 point to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Better Conduct: Pro, while reading Con's arguments, there was a whiny/sarcastic vibe I got out of it. Statements like "Sorry Pro, you're going to have to actually demonstrate a particular occurrence of rain being evidenced by wet grass" and "Hey Pro, where do you think you get the 57% figure from...it wouldn't be from other evidence like polls would it?" are my evidence. Spelling and Grammar: Neither, while Con's arguments were much better organized and presented, this doesn't qualify earning these points. Neither had major spelling/grammar mistakes. Convincing Arguments: Pro, the definition of rain didn't match what Pro was arguing for. Pro pointed this out which refuted Con's rebuttal. Pro also pointed out that in the case of Con's definition being true, the resolution would still be true. Con failed to point out any logical fallacies committed by Pro (as explained in Round 4). Most Reliable Sources: Pro, Practically all sources were from Wikipedia. Pro had exactly 2 more though.

[*Reason for non-removal*] This vote is beyond the 1 month statue of limitations for removal.
************************************************************************
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
----Expanded RFD: Arguments---

The resolution as intended by the Instigator was referring to the occurrence of rainfall as an explanation for the wetness of the grass, rather than its general existence. Unfortunately, both of these can be interpreted so a semantics war is initiated as Pro adopts the latter interpretation.

Throughout the debate, there is a bit of overreaching in terms of assumptions about the wet grass, which is incredibly vague by intention. By merely stating wet grass, it does not imply that *all* grass is wet, or that anything else it wet. This provides validation for Con's argument regarding equal probability. According the definition of "evidence" which was presented and agreed upon in R1, this must be shown to indicate that a *particular* position is *likely* true. Although we do know that the grass exists in a lawn (as per the definition of "grass"), literally no other evidence is given, then there is no way to determine the most likely explanation, as intuitive of explanation as rain might be.

Pro's efforts are focused on proving that the existence of wet grass is evidence that water and, subsequently, the occurrence of rain exist, as mentioned above. This is an easy task; which is accomplished. Con does rebut Pro's effort to prove that the wetness of the grass is evidence of rain, because "wetness" does not necessarily mean water (which is pointed out by Con). Pro make some attempts to fight on Con's ground, but those attempts fail, such as with the claim that rain is the most likely cause (end of R2), but that assumes that all of the grass is wet; if only some of the grass is wet, then rain is incredibly unlikely.

Both participants affirm their own conclusions through their arguments, which are not aligned to each other. To return to the resolution statement, if one says, "the grass is likely wet because of rain", then one is almost certainly not referring to the overall existence of rain, but rather the recent occurrence of ra
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Oh so you still don't get that evidence points to a PARTICULAR thing?

There are thousands of homes in arizona who have lush lawns...their annual rainfall is extremely low...if we found wet grass there, it would most likely be sprinkler water.

Furthermore, rain depositing most of the fresh water on earth is irrelevant because grass needs groundwater which doesn't have to come from rain...especially in desert climates.

Water would evaporate from the blades of grass in a desert climate...

Again, should evidence point to MANY things, or one PARTICULAR thing?

If you tell me that you think a tumor is indirectly related to rain, then you just don't understand evidence.
Posted by HeraldSarah 1 year ago
HeraldSarah
As Salam.Morcos pointed out, rain deposits most of the fresh water on Earth. We know without rain there cannot be grass. Therefore, there is rain. When we have wet grass, this provides evidence for rain as opposed to, say, urine, because rain is the most likely cause of the grass being wet.
Yes, tumors provide evidence for rain. I'm not sure how this pertains to the debate at hand... Also, your example is ridiculous. The tumor is indicative of many things, but they aren't being listed. As a medical professional, the doctor should not address tangents in front of a patient who has just been informed he has a tumor.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Vote Vote Vote...
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
It is affirming the consequent because wet grass is grass, but grass is not wet grass.

So we can still use (P) for grass and wet grass, because the wet grass is still grass (P)...just modified.

The proof becomes the modification...wetness, not grass.

Remember we are proving the wetness of the grass to be evidence of a particular occurrence of rain.

Therefore, to show wetness on the grass you must commit the affirming the consequent fallacy.

If P (grass) then Q (rain)
Q (rain "the water cycle isn't broken")
then Pmod (wet grass)

If wet grass is evidence of rain, because rain is required for grass and all life, then a tumor is evidence of rain, because in order for their to be a living organism, there must be rainwater, and tumors occur on living organisms, so a tumor is evidence of rain.

If your doctor came to you and said, you have a tumor.
You might ask, "Well is it cancerous?"
He would say, "No, your tumor is evidence of rain."

Ahhh, evidence should be particularly indicative, not generally indicative.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
@HeraldSarah

Do you agree that evidence shows a PARTICULAR proposition likely to be ture...your logic shows MANY things likely to be true by finding wet grass to be evidence...
Seriously, how many things could you say wet grass was evidence of?

If you can say more than one particular thing, then it's not really evidence for something particular is it?

Therefore, it's worthless to say that wet grass is evidence of all things needed for living organisms.
Evidence is to be exclusionary.

Eventually you do commit the affirming the consequent fallacy because you have to conclude:
Rain-->wet grass

Look at your proof...does it show rain-->wet grass...that's because you are showing your proof in revers to the conclusion you are actually making.

You're actually saying:
If P (grass) then Q (rain)
Pmod (wet grass)
Q rain

This CANNOT show rain caused wet grass, so what you're actually doing is proving:
Q then Pmod
Rain, then wet grass
Posted by HeraldSarah 1 year ago
HeraldSarah
@MagicAintReal
No, I am not committing a logical fallacy, I was doing the same thing that Pro did:
1) If P then Q (If there is grass there is rain)
2) P exists (Grass exists)
3) So Q (Therefore rain must exist)

On necessity and sufficiency:
Yes, rain is necessary for grass.
No, rain alone is not sufficient for grass.
I am not arguing if rain then grass, I am arguing if grass then rain. Grass proves the existence of rain because grass needs rain. Grass also proves the existence of all things sufficient for grass, including rain. Thus grass proves the existence of rain. I do not see a logical fallacy within my argument.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
@Proving_a_Negative

I'm actually not whiny/sarcastic when I talk, my tone is lost in my debates in text...conduct!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
MagicAintRealsalam.morcosTied
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: The debate really does depend on the definition. I'm not buying that the fallacies play a significant role in this debate, and while I see how Pro's argument for why he wins even on Con's definition, I don't think the reasoning is ever clear in the event of falling droplets. It was Pro's BoP, so he'd need to provide more than this. So I'm looking at the definition, and I can't help but notice the difference between the word "falling" (as Con puts it) and "falls", as it is in the definition. Falling assumes an event, making it something that must be in the present. Falls leaves it more open, allowing for a wide variety of interpretations. Both Pro and Con have reasonable interpretations, and as each of you only propose your definitions in R2, no one's held to a standard. As the wider interpretation isn't denied by the resolution, and as Pro is therefore allowed to uphold his burden through that definition, he succeeds due to a lack of response from Con to the case proper.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
MagicAintRealsalam.morcosTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither participant had better conduct. It seems possible that Pro is intentionally playing a semantics game with this debate, and Con made a few remarks that could be interpreted as hostile, such as "Pro also enjoys employing the logical fallacy affirming the consequent...". Neither participant had superior spelling/grammar. See expanded RFD in Comments for arguments. Nearly all sources were wiki references, and the few other were of equal strength, so there is no superior use of reliable sources.
Vote Placed by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
MagicAintRealsalam.morcosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Better Conduct: Pro, while reading Con's arguments, there was a whiny/sarcastic vibe I got out of it. Statements like "Sorry Pro, you're going to have to actually demonstrate a particular occurrence of rain being evidenced by wet grass" and "Hey Pro, where do you think you get the 57% figure from...it wouldn't be from other evidence like polls would it?" are my evidence. Spelling and Grammar: Neither, while Con's arguments were much better organized and presented, this doesn't qualify earning these points. Neither had major spelling/grammar mistakes. Convincing Arguments: Pro, the definition of rain didn't match what Pro was arguing for. Pro pointed this out which refuted Con's rebuttal. Pro also pointed out that in the case of Con's definition being true, the resolution would still be true. Con failed to point out any logical fallacies committed by Pro (as explained in Round 4). Most Reliable Sources: Pro, Practically all sources were from Wikipedia. Pro had exactly 2 more though.