The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Imperfiect
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

cause+effect=logic(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 4 votes the winner is...
Imperfiect
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,367 times Debate No: 64015
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (38)
Votes (4)

 

vi_spex

Pro

if you eat a poisonous mushroom, it doesn't matter what you think is going to happen if its poisonous to your body, so logic has nothing to do with what one thinks, so there is no your and my logic

if you push me off a cliff, I might fall and die: cause=you pushed me, effect=I fall and die(logic)
Imperfiect

Con

You eat a poisonous mushroom, this is logic. The one eating must be you for the one the mushroom is being eaten by is identified as 'you' in the system of identity.

You get poisoned. This is also logic, for no one else but you was poisoned in the context of that specific event of poisoning.

I push you. This is logic.

You fall off the cliff, this is logic.

You die. This is logic.


The fact that you assumed that anything there was linked is called a hypothesis. Logic will help you determine whether or not the hypothesis is true but it is not the method by which your guesswork happened to formulate the hypotheses that you so happened to do, dearest Pro.

:)
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

intent=cause
natural cause=random
Imperfiect

Con

Nice hypotheses there, would you like to use logic to determine if they are true or not?
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

we can reason, use the concept of logic(cause and effect as is applies in reality), so we can determine if this is reasonable based on our perception of logic like memory, I have lots of memory of how logic applies in the real world, push some one off a cliff and the might die, so that is not reasonable, but if the human body was as strong as superman and one could easily survive and its couid only be fun in reality to push some one off a cliff, then it would be reasonable, because of that logic, and we can reason about this because I just created a world of logic in your mind, because you already have a good concept of logic

it is not reasonable to give a child battery acid because its bad for the child, so its unreasonable based on the logic that is the cause and effect relation between the poisonous effect of the battery acid on the childs body, so its unreasonable to do that if I want the child to be healthy

reason+intent=morality
logic+experience=reason
cause+effect=logic

(let me build on it, you don't have to argue with this, morality is on the side line)if all apples became poisonous today and we were all aware of it, would it be right to give kids apples if we wanted them to be healthy(logic)? and even if we didn't want children to be healthy, would it be right to give them apples(morality)?
Imperfiect

Con

The resolution states that cause+effect=logic

I am arguing that identifying a cause and linking it to an effect requires logic to do but that the cause and the effect are not collectively one unit of logic whatsoever.

Let's say:

Cause = x
Effect = y
Logic = z

You are arguing that an indeterminate splitting of 1 between (y and x) will invariably total up to the result of 1 unit of logic. whether it's a 50/50 split or not is irrelevant as the resolution does not specify it.


Logic, as an item by itself, is the science by which we investigate the principles that govern what is correct or reliable.[http://dictionary.reference.com...] It is not cause an effect at all but rather the process by which we firstly identify the cause and effect independent of one another and then the process (and main component) used to determine if they are linked at all.

The cause and effect together do not constitute logic because if this were the case, me pushing you off the cliff and you dying is just as logical as me arguing that you pushing me away from you made you die, due to Newton's this law [http://www.physicsclassroom.com...] that every action has to have an equal and opposite reaction for it to qualify physical action in the first place. Thus, you technically pushed me away from you and committed suicide, this is all logic according to you as I am randomly stating causes and effects.

This is blatantly not logic, however, as only one of them can be true (if everything could be true, nothing would be the opposite of false in the first place as false concepts would not exist). Since you are proposing a paradoxical model of logic you must explain how you suppose to run this as a viable model of what logic really is since it contradicts itself.


Your round 3 argument is a tangent about morality and logic...
Firstly, you are arguing that morality is not objectively verifiable (since you distinguish it from logic) and have to prove this to be the case or you must concede that point and you have furthermore added onto your Burden of Proof (BoP).

Second of all, your equations do not explain anything at all,

You spontaneously bring in new variables such as reason and experience and somehow use the term 'reason' in two separate equations, the first one having zero of the original variables from the resolution's equation. This is all a little confusing for even the most intellectual members of the audience as you have failed to explain how any of the equations link to each other by either mathematical, linguistic, philosophical or scientific means.

What does morality even have to do with the resolution?

Your last paragraph is very vague and assumes that we are giving it to the children without already having given them the antidote. You are being rather odd with your extremist analogies and not truly explaining anything regarding the resolution whatsoever.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

cause is effect, and effect is cause, as they cant exist without each other, any cause is caused by an effect, and any effect is effect by a cause, or else they wouldn't exist, like, what is an effect if it didn't get caused, and what is a cause if it didn't cause anything, then its not a cause

logic is the measurement of reasonable

you are just twisting it m8, if you push me off a cliff its logic I will die.. what you think dosnt determine anything.. thinking is talking to myself

morality is imaginary, its about what is real, so its guided by what is real, logic guides moral, and logic is true, information is nothing, mental, and the opposite of mental is physical, something, 0 and 1

you cant show me 0 bananas, but you can understand what I mean, because you can imagine a banana, or 10 bananas, but you still have 0 bananas

if you don't know right from wrong you can be immoral(reason), if you don't have intent, you cant be immoral(intent)=(morality)
Imperfiect

Con

If cause is effect how can they need each other? They are the same thing according to Pro. Pro still disagrees that 1.0Cause = 0.5Logic yet asserts that Cause = Effect... This is getting really messy for Pro already and his/her debate has barely begun.

First of all, the definition of cause and effect, in the context of this debate, are as follows:

A cause is a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

An effect is a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

They are blatantly at opposite ends of an event and are in no way whatsoever the same thing. thus to claim that cause is effect and effect is cause is fallacious in every way imaginable.

Pro states that all causes are caused by an effect, he/she does not explain how the first cause caused the first effect is this is true and has created a paradox. Pro then states that an effect is effect by a cause... This makes no sense at all...

After mumbling about what makes a cause a cause and effect an effect, Pro suddenly states that Logic is the unit by which we measure reasonable something is. This is completely false and something Pro has made up on the spot the justify his/her already falsified resolution.

Following this, Pro incoherently types some accusation with the number 8 about me twisting something some way and then says that if I push him/her off a cliff it is logic the he/she will die. This is complete and utter nonsense; what if Pro is a bird? What if there's a trampoline at the bottom with a huge mattress to cushion the fall? There are so many variables left untold that to even consider it logical the Pro would die is absurd logic in and of itself.

Pro then states that morality is imaginary and then states that it is about what is real. I have absolutely no clue how this is remotely linked to the resolution and am going to just ignore it on the grounds of pure ridiculousness. This whole 'logic guides morals, logic is true' attack makes me wonder if the cause for the effect of Pro's nonsensical argument is that they are a troll.

What in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster do bananas have to do with this? What the actual...

Pro ends round 4 blabbering on about morality and reason as well as intent in some newly concocted equation that bars resemblance to the resolution's equation only in how utterly incoherent it is.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

any cause is caused by another cause, that is why when I say cause and effect is logic, that is only 1 part of it, there is another cause and effect relation before that.

cause+effect=logic

natural cause=random(not intended)

randomness+logic=chaos=natural
intent+logic=order=mechanical or supernatural

these are the only 2 possibilities, 0 and 1, either its intended, or its not intended

i am a causal agent, that's why i can cause you to fall down the cliff, by pushing you, and the effect of that is whatever it is yes, but if i didn't push you, that logic dosnt apply, so logic is like a loop, there is no beginning of logic, but there is a beginning of the loop of cause and effect

(a simplified explanation for the randomness of evolution)
invironmental pressure, imagine 2 bears, polar bears, one with shorter fur than the other, the one with thick fur has greator chance of surviving if the one with the short fur hasn't got thick enough fur to survive, so the one with thick fur survives and new ones with thick fur can live on if it get babies, random. like, the bear with thick fur has greater chances of surviving because of the logic that is the bears fur is better fit to survive the cold, and its all random, randomness+logic=ALL natural change over time(including evolution)
the bear that has the thick fur, is naturally the one that survives, because of logic, and its random because why didn't the other bear have the same fur, but now it dosnt matter because the one with short fur isn't around, perfekt balance
same with a bear with to thick for, if its to thick it wont survive and wont breed, random, no choise involved

there can be no first cause, motion is the balancing point between 2 causes
Imperfiect

Con

I am going to end this debating admitting that I have absolutely no idea what Pro's debate was regarding but it sure as hell wasn't his/her already severely incoherent resolution.

Pro ignored my entire Round 1 set of arguments, never answered the question that I asked him/her in Round 2, again ignored absolutely everything I stated in Round 3 and then tried to finally rebuttal me in Round 5 touching very gently on a couple of points that I raise din Round 4 but did it so incoherently that I am almost cringing at how poor the debating style and structure are.

Pro finishes off this debate states that Cause + Effect = Logic literally as a sum. He/she actually contradicts this statement twice in Round 5 itself:

1. "When I say cause and effect is logic, that is only 1 part of it, there is another cause and effect relation before that."

2. "Logic is like a loop, there is no beginning of logic, but there is a beginning of the loop of cause and effect."

These statements were written by Pro and directly contradict the resolution by pointing out that there are fundamental differences between cause+effect and logic.

Every single paradox I highlighted in Pro's case, Pro completely ignored and never addressed, every new point I raised supporting the con case Pro furthermore ignored not even indirectly hinting at it.

Pro had full burden of proof in this debate and has completely failed to uphold it. In actual fact. only around 10% of their debate was actually relevant to the resolution and only 3% of their debate was supporting their side of it.

This was an unpleasant debate and I forgive Pro for their incapability to coherently carry out a debate.

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 5
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
there is no other possibility in reality*
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
you are touching on a different area, only now is true, so any true logic is now. know is a continuous experience, so even if you stand on the edge and look down of a cliff about to jump, you know what will happen based on what you know such as your weight. without cause and effect I couldn't use my eyes for eksample, so if I can understand these words on the screen its absolute that my eyes are matter and I can read, because If I couldn't see there would be no way for me to experience the words on the screen if reading them is the only way of understanding them

probable=pro babble
know=certain
belief=doubt

what is a cause that didn't cause anything? and what is an effect that didn't get caused? how could a ball hitting your face possibly have an effect on your face if it didn't hit your face other then you might feel the wind from the ball coming by, but then remove the ball, and no effect is happening because there is no cause

it is not just necessary, its absolute, there is no possibility in reality, as reality is absolute. if you have no hands, then I know you are not holding a rock in your hand. the skin of a bear is a dead bear, and if you have a bear skin, I know you got it from a bear.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
I don't know how cause/effect/ and logic can be talked about without necessity not coming up.
Logic = A long chain system where the variables of a previous event determines the next.
or Cause and effect, where the effect happens necessarily from it's cause.
When building a logic formula,
If A then B.
You must know 100% of all variables of A before you can know what B will be 100%.
Since it would take far too long to know 100% of all variables before deciding what an event would be, we have developed a system to approximate B by accepting a higher than 50% relevance rate, or an educated guess.
So pushing you off a cliff doesn't say if you will die or not. Pushing you with 100 lbs of force off a 100ft cliff doesn't say if you will die or not. Pushing you with 100 lbs of force off a 100ft cliff toward the rocky shore below, will result in your death. Do we know 100% that you will die? Well, no, not 100%. But we accept that it's unlikely you would survive due to our knowledge about the force of the push, the height of the fall, and the rocks below. At the very least, if we are wrong about you dying, you would at least be pretty broken.
Is using approximation the same as using logic? Maybe, maybe not, but it's worked for us for tens of thousands of years.
Necessity is necessary for Logic to work, if the one event doesn't follow necessarily, then it isn't the effect of the cause you're assuming, or you're not seeing all the variables.

So yes, cause and effect is logic, but only if the effect is a necessary outcome.
Posted by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
yes thank you gorodin for not voting because you'd be report for voteobmbing...
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
thanks gorodin
Posted by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
so he wins for being on the right side lmfao...
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
I am in a debate with both of You right now.
And I am on the side of Vi_spex in this debate.

Reason: An effect without cause is illogical. That is the definition of Effect, caused by something. Hence that is logical that a Cause has an Effect.

Vi_spex wins.

One can stipulate not all things or occurrences are actually causes. But all effects still come from a cause. A cause has an effect, even if subconscious; such as in the event of a political cause.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
i have 100 grams of weed, a big rock plate, naaais
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
sure xD
Posted by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
So you just admitted to crime?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
vi_spexImperfiectTied
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: Frankly, Pro's case was incoherent. He contradicted himself at times, and it was unclear what his specific motion was, given that he can't have been arguing that only cause and effect is logic, since he contradicted that. This was painful to read because it was nonsensical. I should probably award S&G, but given the whole incoherency issue, I'm just scoring on arguments. Pro had BoP, and failed to even really present a case with coherency, thus, Con gets points for responding to what was there as best he could.
Vote Placed by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
vi_spexImperfiectTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons argument was more unique and interesting had to vote that side. Also he won overall.
Vote Placed by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
vi_spexImperfiectTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Woah. Difficult debate to read. All points to Pro (except Conduct) for the following reasons. Spelling and Grammar - Not a single capital letter was used in Pro's argument (if so, then few) and was overall strewn with run-on sentences. Arguments - I agree with Con; I had no clue what was being stated for the majority of Pro's arguments. Sources - Con was the only one to use sources. Seemed like an interesting debate topic, Con was able to completely dominate this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
vi_spexImperfiectTied
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 arguments fall short at fulfilling his burden, as they make little sense in contrast to con's LOGICAL arguments that actually manage to rebut pro.