The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ssadi
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

logic is cause and effect

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 2 votes the winner is...
ssadi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 339 times Debate No: 88923
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

cause=random+specified
sum of all logic=chaos+order

poison=unhealthy
logical=dont drink poisonous things to stay healthy
illogical=drink poisonous things to stay healthy

logic is true, logic is absolute, reality is logic
ssadi

Con

bop is on pro
they have to prove that logic is cause and effect


= means is equal to

=/= means is not equal to


rebuttals


#1

pro wrote
cause=random+specified


if pro was correct then the following should be correct

random + specified = unknown + known = partially known = partially unknown


full side of glass = empty side of glass

full side of glass = cause

empty side of glass =/= cause

cause =/= cause -> contradiction

=> pro is not correct


#2

pro wrote
sum of all logic = chaos + order

logic = you can know

chaos = you don't know
order = you know

chaos + order = you don't know + you know = you are confused
sum of all logic = you are not confused

you are confused = you are not confused -> contradiction

=> sum of all logic =/= chaos + order


#3

pro wrote
poison = unhealthy

poison = noun + verb + adjective [1]
unhealthy = adjective [2]

noun + verb + adjective = adjective
noun + verb = 0
noun = something
verb = something
0 = nothing

noun + verb = something = 0 -> contradiction

=> poison =/= unhealthy


#4

pro wrote
logic is absolute

logical = don't cut off your hand to stay healthy
illogical = don't cut off your hand to stay healthy (has serious gangrene) [3]

=> logic is not absolute



my argument


#a

logic = you can know
if you know then you are right
=> logic is when you are right


#b

cause = do it
effect = it is done

cause and effect = do it and it is done

a murderer murders an innocent person = cause
the innocent person dies = effect

the murderer is not right to murder an innocent person

=> logic is not cause and effect (follows from #a and #b)



conclusion


i showed that pro provided incorrect and irrelevant arguments to resolution

i also negated the resolution by showing that logic is not cause and effect


i wish pro best of luck


sources

[1] http://www.dictionary.com...
[2] http://www.dictionary.com...
[3] http://www.healthline.com...


#trolldebate
http://i0.kym-cdn.com...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

you are con.. it is for you to defeat my claim

"random + specified = unknown + known = partially known = partially unknown"
random is unknown?

sufficient amount of poison

morality is logical.. logic is not logical or illogical, logic is true
ssadi

Con

"you are con.. it is for you to defeat my claim"

i did provide an argument to defeat your claim that logic is cause and effect (under "my argument")


by the way,

you are pro.. it is for you to prove your claim first

i am con.. it is enough for me to defeat your arguments only and i did



rebuttals


"random is unknown?"

yea


"sufficient amount of poison"

sufficient for what?


"morality is logical"

sure.. so?


"logic is not logical or illogical"

logic is not logical, cause and effect is logical, therefore logic is not cause and effect


"logic is true"

logical is true, not logic
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

you have given up in advance m8
ssadi

Con

"you have given up in advance m8"

a bare assertion which is also irrelevant to the discussion
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

so cause and effect is not logic?
ssadi

Con

bop is on you to prove your claim that logic is cause and effect and you haven't provided any relevant and convincing argument yet
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

you are con, my equations prove it
ssadi

Con

your equations are bare assertions and need to be proven first

i am con and don't have to provide rebuttals to your arguments when you haven't provided any

in addition, i showed that logic is not cause and effect using your own reasoning


"reality is logic" (round 1)

reality is logical and logical is not logic, therefore reality is not logic


thanks to pro for this interesting debate


vote con
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by vi_spex 8 months ago
vi_spex
australian nugat and marshemellows
Posted by tahirimanov 8 months ago
tahirimanov
Which universe are you from?
Posted by vi_spex 8 months ago
vi_spex
a hypothetical of logic is whatever i say becuase its not true.. i am causing it with my words,.. wind caused an apple to fall, the apple rolled down a hill, far from the tree, .. all mathemtically valid
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
vi_spexssadiTied
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: Vote from the Voter Union. The resolution specifies that logic "is" cause and effect, and since it is a fact-claim, Pro's BOP is much greater than Con's. If Pro doesn't demonstrate the resolution true, Con wins. Pro doesn't fulfill their BOP at all. Through the debate, Pro says that their "equations" fulfill their BOP, but their R1 is very unclear, to the point of me not getting what Pro means at all. Pro says a cause is random but specified, and logic has both chaos and order. But this doesn't entail that *all* logic depends on cause-effect relationships. Pro doesn't prove or explain that at all. Con thoroughly refutes Pro's argument by proving via reductio ad absurdum that Pro's argument relies on internal contradictions. Those rebuttals are entirely dropped by Pro. Pro concedes that morality is logical, and Con shows that a cause-effect relationship doesn't entail logic. Pro drops this argument too. There's not much else to specify, because Pro is incoherent and doesn't fulfill BOP.
Vote Placed by Overhead 8 months ago
Overhead
vi_spexssadiTied
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: No sources used and spelling and grammar for both includes notable lack of capitalisation so tie for those. Conduct a tie although I was tempted to give it to CON as PRO stating "you have given up in advance m8" could seem a little snarky. Decided I might be reading too much into that. In terms of convincing arguments, I don't feel PRO ever makes his case. The assertions made in R1 don't seem to be backed up and what ever logical argument they are trying to formulate is hard to understand with their minimalist posting style and lack of explanation. As PRO never successfully makes a case and the burden of proof is on PRO as the instigator, CON pointing this out wins the day.