i determine where logic begins and ends
Debate Rounds (5)
the wind caused an apple to fall from a tree, the effect is the fall, the effect is the impact, the effect is the cause, the effect is the apple is no longer on the tree, the effect is the apple didn't get picked as it lay there to long and got worms in it
"the wind caused an apple to fall from a tree, the effect is the fall, the effect is the impact, the effect is the cause, the effect is the apple is no longer on the tree, the effect is the apple didn't get picked as it lay there to long and got worms in it"
This does not fulfill Pro's burden of proof as there is no telling for sure if he, in fact, thought this. Even if he did, there is no proof that he decided this.
"I wrote it."
not proof of anything as someone may have written it before him.
"i remember i wrote it, so that is the truth, and true is now"
This is circular reasoning. Pro is including his conclusion in his premises. His argument is:
P1) If I write something, it is the truth
P2) I wrote X statement
C1) Therefore I determine where logic begins and ends.
C2) Therefore X statement is true
Each line in this argument is simply a restatement of the previous one. His statement "true is now" is also a red herring.
"i remember writing it, that is the truth, and true is now..."
This is only a restatement of what my opponent said in round 3. I already criticized this claim and pro did not defend it at all.
"physical experience only happens now, only now is matter"
This statement is just another red herring.
"read what I wrote"
I find the above command to be humorous and absolutely ridiculous. I read what you wrote in round 1 if that's what you mean but showed that it does not prove your case. Everything else you wrote, I debunked no problem. You are evidently either:
1. A troll
2. A sore loser
3. In need of mental help
4. Both 2 and 3
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con had logic, Pro had gibberish.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.