The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
64bithuman
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

cause and effect is logic

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...
vi_spex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 605 times Debate No: 77889
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (30)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

there is no logic in fantasy

logic is absolute

if you are lost in the forest and hungry, and you pick up a mushroom and eat it, does it matter what you think is going to happen if the mushroom is poisonous? logic is determined by matter, not by your thoughts.. you crazy person :)

you cant read these words on the screen with your eyes closed, cause and effect, absolute

if apples became poisonous today, and everyone was aware of it, would it be right to give kids apples if we wanted them to be healthy(logic)? and even if we didnt want them to be healthy, would it be right to give kids apples(morality)?

logic+(and)experience of it=(is)reason(the concept, mental simulation of logic)

reason+intent=morality
64bithuman

Con

Logic is not cause and effect.

Logic is based on the premise and on presuppositions relating to the premise, ie: I presuppose based on a set of established facts (or what I perceive as facts) that eating wild mushrooms could be hazardous to my health. If I knew a bit about mushrooms, I could apply a set of presuppositions to the mushroom in question, and deduce that it probably is or is not good for me based on things I might have learned, like the shape of the mushroom, or the length, color, etc.
Therefore, the action I took (if I ate it or did not eat it) is wholly based on my presuppositions. If I chose not to eat the mushrooms that would not have any say in whether or not the mushroom was poisonous. Logic decides if I eat it; If I do eat it, the cause and effect is a different process altogether.
My theory here can be proven by using this scenario:

Person A eats the mushroom because he has the wrong set of logical presuppositions and dies in the woods.

Person B applies the right set of logical presuppositions and deduces not to eat the mushrooms and therefore survives.

Cause and effect is a different process in this scenario – it determines the consequence of the choice.

The choice however, is determined by logical reasoning based on presuppositions. Pro also argues for this formula “reason+intent=morality”. That formula doesn’t hold up – I would argue that true, selfless morality isn’t based on logic at all. It’s not logical (in the Darwinian sense) to run back in a burning building to save a dog – but people do it all the time.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

is it logical to do like person b? and if so why

is it logical to give your kid a deadly poisonous mushroom if you do it to make him healthy?

if you switch the deadly mushroom with an apple, is it then logical?
64bithuman

Con


“is it logical to do like person b? and if so why”



It may not be logical to Person A, but for Person B it is the logical conclusion. I claim logic is subjective and if it is subjective then it cannot depend on cause and effect. If you gave your kid a poisonous mushroom and didn’t know that it was poisonous, you still applied the logical reasoning that you subjectively had – unfortunately for you, the logical reasoning that you had wasn’t good enough. You had no way of knowing the cause/effect until you tried it.


The question is: if you had known for certain that the mushroom was toxic - and therefore didn’t give it to your kid, is that really using the powers of logical reasoning? Or is that simply being educated beforehand and thereby circumventing the necessity to apply logical reasoning in the first place?


Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

why is it logical to give your kid a healthy apple over a deadly poisonous mushroom?
64bithuman

Con


The point here is that logic is not a universal standard – you can’t always apply it perfectly. So for one person one thing might be logical but for another it might not be. This is subjectivity in logic! This subjectivity then proves that logic can’t be built around cause and effect, because there are many people who use bad logic and are forced to feel the consequences to a bad logical choice.


I’d refer Pro back to the older arguments, most of which are unchallenged directly.


Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

logic is absolute, so it is a universal standard, its immoral and wrong, illogical for anyone to give their child a deadly poisonous mushroom on purpose if they do it for the child to be healthy, where as a healthy apple is not

logic is matter, my old definition of logic was the implication of matter against matter

there is no your and my logic, is it illogical to help push me out from a Cliff so i can fly if i gained Supermans powers over night?

there is no logic in fantasy
64bithuman

Con

I’ll argue that there is no absolute logic – that’s a myth. There are almost always multiple ways to logically assess any situation: some ways are stupid and some ways make “sense”. However, the logical conclusion for any situation is apt to change depending on the person who is thinking about it and how the person is thinking about it.

Again, my point would be that for you, me, and most people, giving a poisonous apple to a child would be illogical – unless the premise changes; if you were a person from Samoa or something and didn’t know what a poisonous apple looked like, then the logical process wouldn’t be the same, you can’t argue that his logical processing was flawed, just that he wasn’t equipped with the same logical presuppositions.

If we get totally fantastical – my point still holds up. If you were a paranoid schizophrenic, you might come to some conclusion based in superman’s powers, etc.

The idea here is that the cause and effect is related to the consequences made by the choice that each subjective logical presupposition thought up.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

close your eyes and read on to prove me wrong

its not about whats logical, but logic itself

morality is intended, without intent there is no morality going on, like an accident
64bithuman

Con

64bithuman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: Greg4586/ Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 1 point to Con (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: This debate was close except for the grammar. Con is the clear winner there. As for the debate it's very hard to say, because Pro and Con view logic in two very different ways. Con views logic as how each individual views the situation and sees what is logically right to do. On the other hand Pro views logic as an absolute force that is the right thing to do no mater how one sees the situation. Now what makes it difficult is if Con is right about his view of logic he should win, but if Pro is right then he should win. So I have to decide who is right about logic. So to help decide let me take this quote from Pro "there is no logic in fantasy". He's right. Logic does not exist in what is not real. In the way con views it it's like everyone is living in their own objective world of how they view things, and because there is no logic in fantasy that objective word is void of logic. As Pro put it "logic is absolute" Con's view is void of logic. I vote f

[*Reason for non-removal*] The report was in response to the initial vote, which awarded points in the opposite manner of what was intended. This vote was apparently changed before I saw it, and allocates points in the same manner as it explains.
******************************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
despeRat times
Posted by Greg4586 1 year ago
Greg4586
Actually it turns out I can just change my vote so never mind.
Posted by Greg4586 1 year ago
Greg4586
So I voted here, but uhh I made a mistake. Pro was supposed to win 3 points for having the most convincing arguments.
Posted by Greg4586 1 year ago
Greg4586
First argument I've seen from vi_spex that makes sense. Nah just kidding, seriously though good debate.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i wil becasue i am my imagination
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
vi_spex vs vi_spex. Who loses?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
probably right
Posted by 64bithuman 1 year ago
64bithuman
I can't believe I missed the last round! I missed the window literally by minutes! All I was going to say was to refer readers to earlier rounds.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
alright you win this one..
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Greg4586 1 year ago
Greg4586
vi_spex64bithumanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was close except for the grammar. Con is the clear winner there. As for the debate it's very hard to say, because Pro and Con view logic in two very different ways. Con views logic as how each individual views the situation and sees what is logically right to do. On the other hand Pro views logic as an absolute force that is the right thing to do no mater how one sees the situation. Now what makes it difficult is if Con is right about his view of logic he should win, but if Pro is right then he should win. So I have to decide who is right about logic. So to help decide let me take this quote from Pro "there is no logic in fantasy". He's right. Logic does not exist in what is not real. In the way con views it it's like everyone is living in their own objective world of how they view things, and because there is no logic in fantasy that objective word is void of logic. As Pro put it "logic is absolute" Con's view is void of logic. I vote f