The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Con (against)
Winning
4 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...
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 351 times Debate No: 72385
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

there is no logic in fantasy


logic is absolute, i know you cant read these words on the screen with your eyes closed


a blind mans reality is not of colours and light


if you have a bear skin, you have a dead bear, and if you have a bear skin, i know it comes from a bear

TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

I accept with the understanding that BOP is on the instigator.


The resolution is: Cause and effect is the same as logic.

To win I must show that cause and effect is not the same as logic.



Contention 1

1.) The definition of logic is, a set of rules governing truth.
2.) The definition of 'cause and effect' is the action of causing
3.) When distilled, The definition of 'is' is, the same as and identicle to. This is also supported by the fact is means '=' in the resolution which means, exactly the same.
4.) The purpose of cause and effect is to define a relationship between two things while "The aim of logic is...to investigate, classify, and evaluate good and bad forms of reason."
5.) The purpose of cause and effect is Not to investigate, classify or evalute claims.....the purpose is of logic is Not to neccesarily to define a relationship between two things.

6) Thus, Logic and causal relationship are not equivelants, are not similar and are definitely not identicle (the same) in value, amount, function or meaning".
7.) Thus the resolution cannot be affirmed


Most people think that logic is just using reason and coming to resonable deductive or inductive answers to a problem. This is simply not true. Logic is a set of rules which govern truth.....Just like the laws of gravity, logic has its own rules. The Law of Noncontradiction for instance is a law of logic which states that no two antithetical propositions can be true at the same time. This is what logic truely is.

Cause and effect however is something of a completely different and incomparable nature. Cause and effect is defined simply as the principle of causation, meaning"the action of causing". Is means: "3rd person singular present indicative of be."...."be" on the other hand simply means: "to continue or remain as before"....furthermore if we look at the resolution, 'is', is likened to the "=" sign which of course means 'equiveleant to', which of course means "equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc." or "identicle". Thus, overall we can see that the resolution translates to Cause and effect is identicle and equal in value, function and meaning to logic. Finally, when we look back to the definition of cause and effect, the simply action of causing something. We can see that it has nothing to do with and is of course not identical in value, funtion nor meaning ((as can be noted by the fact that cause and effect is not listed as a synonym of logic, nor reason, nor intellect or any other thing that even relates to logic)). Thus the resolution is negated.

Again, please re-read the logical proof:

1.) The definition of logic is, a set of rules governing truth.
2.) The definition of 'cause and effect' is the action of causing
3.) When distilled, The definition of 'is' is, the same as and identicle to. This is also supported by the fact is means '=' in the resolution which means, exactly the same.
4.) The purpose of cause and effect is to define a relationship between two things while "The aim of logic is...to investigate, classify, and evaluate good and bad forms of reason."
5.) The purpose of cause and effect is Not to investigate, classify or evalute claims.....the purpose is of logic is Not to neccesarily to define a relationship between two things.
6) Thus, Logic and causal relationship are not equivelants, are not similar and are definitely not identicle (the same) in value, amount, function or meaning".
7.) Thus the resolution cannot be affirmed

I end my argument
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

the purpose of cause and effect..


your definitions are all over the place



logic is also a set of rules that govern truth.. like its a carshouse falling apart becasue of wind.. so closing the window is resonable when doing a cardhouse on a windy day...


there is no logic in fantasy


is it logical to eat a poisonous mushroom if you want to be healthy and you know the mushroom is poisonous? why not..









TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

Thank you for your response, I proceed to rebutt



You’re one and only claim: “[Logic is] a car[d] house falling apart becasue of wind”

1st argument: you make a claim yet you have no warrant to back it up, or in other words you have stated something is true and yet you have provided no reason that it is true. The only thing you have done is state another truth which does not support the claim. What I am referring to is when you say: “closing the window is resonable when doing a cardhouse on a windy day...”……Ultimately, this does not prove your point though. Here is your logical proof of your claim, so it is simple to see.

1.) If you play a game, you do not want that game to be interrupted or jeopardized.

2.) Wind is threatening to ruin your game

3.) Thus stopping that threat (by shutting window) is reasonable

4.) Thus logic is equivelant to and means the same thing as 'cause and effect'.

The argument in itself is a complete non-sequitir argument/fallacy, meaning your premises (premises 1,2 and 3), do not logically result in your claim/conclusion (#4 up above). That’s why non-sequitir as you probably know is translated as “does not follow”.

In order for this claim sequence to be true you would have to show me how the simple action of being-reasonable logically leads to the conclusion/claim that you have provided up above on #4. As of now though this is not an argument. Please explain, and if you could, making a logical proof would be extremely helpful for the both of us.

.........................................................................................................................................................................

I end my argument again and extend my previous arguments as they have not been contested. Please note that the opponent has conceded his possession of full Burden of Proof and thus it is his sole responsibility to prove himself right. Thank you, I pass the pen back to the opponent.

.........................................................................................................................................................................

Also, my citations for all definitions last round were simply from google and dictionary.com, if you would like to have every citation for each definition, I can go back and find them. Also, about the quotation describing the purpose of logic, it can be found below. The last citation I will provide is just a link to the description of a non-sequitir argument.

Purpose of logic: http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Definition of non-sequitir fallacy: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

m8 its really simple..

is it logical to keep the window open if you are making a cardhouse and its blowing and windy?

it is illogical to keep the window open you want to build a tall cardhouse.. cause and effect

logic has no purpose..
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

Interesting debate, Let's begin:


QUESTION: "is it logical to keep the window open if you are making a cardhouse and its blowing and windy?"

Answer: Yes, it is logical to keep the window open. However, This does not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that cause and effect is the same as logic……Remember, you could be correct (I don’t think you are) but if you can’t dive deeper into the meaning of your statement/conclusion, and then Explain it to me as if I am a newborn child, then we all have no choice but to assume and believe you are wrong. Especially since you have BoP. You must explain it to me in detail……We will not and cannot accept your assumptions hiding behind your question (the one I quoted at the top of this argument), to then come to your final conclusion that logic is ‘cause and effect’. You Must Explain if you want us to know, end of story…

Secondly, he has stated that “logic has no purpose.” However, again, he has not provided reasons to support the claim and thus they are as void as a 1993 java script…

.....................................................................................................................................................................

Voters, please recognize that BOP is on pro, that he has yet to affirm the resolution because he fails to justify his claims and finally, that All of my arguments have been ignored; because “silence is compliance” in debate, he has conceded that my points are correct and thus they must be assumed to be true, if it isn’t apparent already, that is.

I pass the gauntlet back to Bob...

Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

if that isnt clear i dont know what is.. would you let the window stay open if the wind constantly knocked over your cardhouse as you attempt to build it time and time again while failing miserably... unless you are cemented to to the floor and have nothing else to do or within your reach or something i dont see how that is resonable


it isnt resonable to jump off a building, unless like its on fire and you are going to melt away, then a fall might be a more resonable choice of death




TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

Pro conceeds all arguments by not responding, As of now I win by default.
Debate Round No. 4
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

In this debate I believe I have provided valid and compelling evidence in support of my case and in negation of the resolution. I began my case by pointing out the differences in definition between logic, which is a set of rules versus 'cause and effect', whos definition relates with the interaction between to events. By then realizing that the resolution requires that 'cause and effect' has identicle function, value, meaning and operation with logic, that it in fact fails to realize this goal, hell it isn't even similar, they serve entirely different purposes. Secondly I made sure to differenciate reason with logic, a point my opponent fails to understand as can be noted by his proofs in his argument.

In pro's final rebuttals to my argument he simply states unfounded fact and furthermore when pressured to explore his ideas in depth, beyond speculation and unfounded reason he simply fails to do so, and fails to respond. As a matter of pure fact, pro never once actually rebutted any of my arguments including the later arguments stating that because he had not rebutted my arguments that he forfeited the round. Yes, pro has indeed conceeded many things this round, arguments aren't the only thing, he has also accepted the full BoP and has utterly failed to show that indeed 'cause and effect' is quivelant to logic. In my argument I am the sole individual to even use citations. For the reasons provided and for the sake of the understanding and appreciation of logic itself I am compelled to demand an unilateral vote for con.

I honestly thank anyone who has taken the time to read this debate and hope that my opponent and I can have more debates, perhaps on a different subject, later on. Thanks
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
i agree
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
so there is no need to close the window then if there is no Wind i guess
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
bc you dont want your cards to fall over and ruin your game
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
why is it
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
btw, in my round 3 argument I meant: It IS reasonable to SHUT the window not keep it open.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
hmm chaos+order=logic
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
vi_spexTheJuniorVarsityNoviceTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.