The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kwagga_la
Con (against)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 157 times Debate No: 92660
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

i know you cant read these words with your eyes closed, unless you have transparent eye lids or something
kwagga_la

Con

Logic (from the Ancient Greek: _5;_9;^7;_3;_4;^2;, logike)[1] originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, (but coming to mean thought or reason) is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of arguments. A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion. (In ordinary discourse, the conclusion of such an argument may be signified by words like 'therefore', 'hence', 'ergo' and so on.) The form of an argument type is a schematic way of representing what is common to all arguments of that type.
Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an important branch of informal logic. Since much informal argument is not strictly speaking deductive, on many conceptions of logic, informal logic is not logic at all. See 'Rival conceptions of logic', below.
Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content. An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property. The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic. Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle.[2] In many definitions of logic, logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same. This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous, because no formal logic captures all of the nuances of natural language.
Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference.[3][4] Symbolic logic is often divided into two main branches: propositional logic and predicate logic.
Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in particular to the study of model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Logic is not dependent on cause and effect but is a way of determining, amongst other things, if it can be concluded that the effect justifiably follows the cause. Therefore, cause and effect can be classified as logical or illogical without changing the meaning of logic itself.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

superman is spoken, superman is illogical

there is no logic in fantasy

a cause causes, and an effect is caused

logic is the opposite of logical and illogical... reason is the opposite of logic, logic is true, only now is true.. past is logical
kwagga_la

Con

Logic is:
The law of identity states that A is A
The law of non-contradiction tells us that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense.
The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either true or false.

"there is no logic in fantasy" " but it is logical that fantasy exist " you just contradicted yourself.

"a cause causes, and an effect is caused" " and what caused the cause? If you cannot determine that then maybe the effect is the reason for the cause.
Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:
1. A and B regularly occur together.
2. Therefore A is the cause of B.
This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B. This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common cause that is actually the cause of A and B). The mistake being made is that the causal conclusion is being drawn without adequate justification. http://www.nizkor.org...

"logic is the opposite of logical and illogical... reason is the opposite of logic, logic is true, only now is true.. past is logical"

You cannot say logic is true if logic is the opposite of logical and illogical. The fact that you claim something can be true is contradicting everything you said. You cannot logically say something is true if it is the opposite of logic.

"reason is the opposite of logic, logic is true"
Again, there is no way that you can reasonable say that logic is true because the opposite will mean reason is false and is a lie. Therefore stating anything reasonably will be a lie.

Your logic is a distortion of your imagination that equals an alternative that became a mental illusion that replaced what is logical and therefore also reality. Your reality is not real and therefore your statement is false that logic is cause and effect because your effect is based on your imagination, and considering all the things you usually say about imagination in your comments, has no cause to justify the effect.

Cognitive distortions are exaggerated or irrational thought patterns that are believed to perpetuate the effects of psychopathological states, especially depression and anxiety. Cognitive distortions are thoughts that cognitive therapists believe cause individuals to perceive reality inaccurately. These thinking patterns often are said to reinforce negative thoughts or emotions.[2] Cognitive distortions tend to interfere with the way a person perceives an event. Because the way a person feels intervenes with how they think, these distorted thoughts can feed negative emotions and lead an individual affected by cognitive distortions towards an overall negative outlook on the world and consequently a depressive or anxious mental state. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

a=b, if b=a

math is accurate or not.. not true

your oppinion that i contradict myself dosnt make it so

a first cause is like getting a punch from a non existent puncher.. impossible

an effect is caused.. there is no punch to your face without a puncher..

"You cannot say logic is true if logic is the opposite of logical and illogical. The fact that you claim something can be true is contradicting everything you said. You cannot logically say something is true if it is the opposite of logic."

logic is true.. logical and illogical are not.. only now is matter

lie=reason=thoughts

there is no logic in fantasy.. there is no, your and my logic
kwagga_la

Con

a=b, if b=a
That"s the same as saying black=black, if black=black. Based on your conclusion you already decided what is right must therefore be right, not considering any other possibilities, which is of course a logical fallacy. But then again, logical fallacies cannot exist right? So I do not even know why you go through all this trouble to even prove what is logical " sorry, my mistake, logic.

"math is accurate or not.. not true"
I am learning not to answer generalization like this. What math, in what field, under which circumstances, based on what hypothesis etc?

"your oppinion that i contradict myself dosnt make it so"
And your opinion that my opinion (that you contradict yourself) does not make it so, does not prove it wrong either.

"a first cause is like getting a punch from a non existent puncher.. impossible"
Again, the first cause must exist to be able to punch. Your non-existent puncher cannot punch, why? BECAUSE HE DOES NOT EXIST. Therefore, your logic that requires a cause must be something that already exists. You try to base your argument on the necessity of a cause that must exist to prove that the cause cannot exist? The truth is, you only make an exception to your rule when it deals with something you don"t want to exist. Your causality does not prove non-existence; your association is not justified.

"logic is true.. logical and illogical are not.. only now is matter"
You are contradicting just about any dictionary you can think of. If what is logical agrees with logic then it must also be true.
Logical: according to or agreeing with the principles of logic (http://www.dictionary.com...)

"there is no logic in fantasy.. there is no, your and my logic"
That"s maybe why what you say is not logical or based on logic
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.