The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Con (against)
Winning
3 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 1 vote the winner is...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 914 times Debate No: 84879
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (39)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

necessety of motion
Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

I thank my opponent for instigating the debate and will now begin presenting my arguments.

Firstly, I would like to clarify what logic is. It is the study of the principles of correct reasoning. (1) For the purposes of this debate, I will be using the conditional operator -> in sentential logic as my primary exmaple. I will show that the nature of causation is based on our instincts and cannot be predicted by logic.

Logic is not cause and effect. I will show that a) cause and effect are psychological phenomena based on force dynamics, rather than grounded in logic and b) cause and effect have no logical equivalence. I will show, after Pinker (2007), using several examples.

Example 1: Causes vs conditions
Cause seems to have no consistent definition. For example, what causes a statue to be weathered? Our intuitive answer is the rain, but there are other necessary conditions to this chemical process: The presence of acids in the rain, sufficiently hot climatic conditions, that the statue is made of a soluble or non-resistant material, and so on. The absence of one factor means the statue will not rust, yet we still think of rusting as the causation.

In sentential logic, if all these are necessary conditions, we would formalise this as: Result -> Necessary condition. For example:
Rain -> Acids in the rain
Rain -> Hot climate
Rain -> Statue is made of soluble materials

and so on. This is contrary to our normal conception of causation (that rain causes the statue to erode).

Similary, we do not consider my birth to be the cause of my engagement in this debate, even though the former is a necessary condition of the latter. Nor is the fact that the colonial government lacked local government officials the cause of me sitting at the library at the moment, even though if the first had not happened, my university would not have been established, and there would be no library for me to sit in.

Now imagine an alternative universe where I was not originally born. Airmax decides it would be fun to see me engaging in this debate, so he gets in a time machine and tells my parents to give birth to me just so I can engage in this debate. In this situation, my birth would be the cause of my engagement in this debate. This shows us the inconsistency in the definition of causation.

Thus, the logical notion of conditions is distinct from our instinctive notion of cause and effect.

Example 2: Transitivity
Causation is often transitive. Slavic nationalism caused the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, which in turn caused the Austria-Hungary to attack Serbia. So Slavic nationalism caused Austria-Hungary to attack Serbia. Yet conditions are not. If I had not been born, I would not be studying at university. If I were not studying at university, I would be working. But you can't say that if I had not been born, I would be working.

Example 3: Overdetermination and preemption
Overdetermination is when multiple sufficient conditions for a situation are all satisfied. Let's say a tornado and a tsunami hit a building at the same time. Each one would be sufficient for its destruction alone, so if there had been no tornado, the house would have been destroyed by the tsunami and vice versa. So neither are necessary conditions. Yet we say that both of them caused the house to collapse.

Preemption is a similar example. Let's say one ball is rolling towards a stationary ball. John uses his hand to stop the moving ball, but in doing so slopes the table slightly, causing the stationary ball to move anyway. Is the movement of the moving ball or John the cause? Most people would say John is the cause, and a handful will say both are the causes, but neither are necesary conditions as the absence of one condition does not mean the ball will not move.

The nature of causation
As we can see from the above examples, the nature of causation is very muddy and seems to be based on human instincts, not grounded in logic. Sometimes, there are even contradicting views on what is the cause and what is the effect. In fact, Rusell wrote, 'The law of causation ... is a relic of a bygone age, surviving like the monarchy, only because it is supposed to do no harm.'

According to Leo Talmy, causation is based on force dynamics. We construe causation using the concepts of agonist and antagonist. The agonist has an intrinsic tendency to move or rest. An antagonist exerts some sort force on the agonist which, when greater than the agonist's intrinsic tendency, causes movement. All causation is considered like tihs. For example, in my weathering example, the statue is the agonist and the rain the antagonist. The other conditions are not considered in the equation because they are neither agonist nor antagonist.

This has to do with the intuitive physics in human cognition. Experimental psychology has corrorborated Talmy's semantic claims. Clare Walsh and Steven Sloman told volunteers that a coin was perched on the edge, on the brink of falling over. In the first scenario, the coin was going to fall tails, but Bill flipped the direction by rolling a marble there, making it land on heads.

In the second scenario, the coin was going to land heads, and Bill again tried to roll a marble there. A book blocked the path of the marble, but Frank removed it, allowing it to land on tails.

Logically speaking, in the first scenario, Bill's marble was a necessary condition of the coin landing on heads, and Frank's action in the second scenario was a necessary condition of the coin landing on tails. Yet people don't say Frank's action was a cause, whereas they do think Bill's marble was a cause. (4)

It should be overwhelmingly clear from this experiment that cause and effect is based not on logic but on force-dynamic intuition.

Principles of logic unrelated to cause and effect
Some principles of logic, on the contrary, have nothing to do with cause and effect. Consider this sequent: A -> B, A |= B. It is valid, but often has nothing to do with cause and effect. For example, consider this translation scheme:

A: I am a boy.
B: I am male

The premises, conclusion and sequent are all valid. Yet my status as a boy doesn't cause my gender. It simply entals it. I have effectively shown a 'double disassociation': cause and effect that doesn't depend on logic, and logic that doesn't depend on cause and effect.

Conclusion
I have shown from these examples that cause and effect cannot be equated with logic.

(1) http://philosophy.hku.hk...
(2) Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. Penguin.
(This source contributes most of the material in my argument; uncited arguments mostly are drawn from the source, though with different exmaples.)
(3) https://philosophymodsquad.wordpress.com...;
(4) https://books.google.com.hk...;
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

logic is true, predictions are unknown

there is no necessety of motion in fantasy, no logic, reason is the opposite of logic.. i want to show an example to clarify my position because i agree you can not study how to reason correctly without logic, so:

poison=unhealthy
logical=dont eat poisonous things to stay healthy
illogical=eat poisonous things to stay healthy(wrong)
(effects)

we can not change logic, you can change how you percieve logic, only by reasoning wrong, logic has no flaws

you already have a true example of a cause and effect relation with the rain causing a state to be weathered, you dont need any further, because they will all fit the same defintion. 1 defines them all, as any cause is a cause

a cause is natural, mechanical, or supernatural btw.. specified by intent or random by chaos

specified cause(intent, choice)+effect=order
so the cause you are at the library might not be logic at all, but simply reasoning...

order+chaos=the sum of all logic

Example 2: i wouldnt argue that you can work if you dont exist, had not been born, because it would be illogical, which goes against cause and effect

Example 3: they are both necessary conditions because the house cant take a hit like that, and the house isnt there after it, if the wave and tsunami didnt hit, the house could be there and would be there or atleast be able to be there

john is the cause of what? what made the moving ball move, unspecified

nature is causation, cause and effect has no beginning and end for it to exist

cause and effect is necessety of motion, because there are no causeless effects, there is no punch from a non existent puncher.. cause+cause=motion

random cause+effect=chaos(any non intended cause)
chaos+order=the sum of all logic

seams to me you agree, you are just specifing causes and effect to demonstrate logic to me, in the scenario with the coin and marble

action=cause
reaction=effect

intuition is reasoning

boy=male
you are saying, being a boy dosnt cause that one is a male, which is to say its not about cause and effect.. but it might still be logic

logic=(is)log i see=sense=IS=true=absolute=know=certain

know=hysical experience
Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

I thank my opponent for his swift reply. His arguments, although articulate and fascinating, fall short of compelling. I will now deconstruct his arguments and show that he has failed to support the resolution.

Firstly, my opponent agrees that logic is the study of the priniplces of correct reasoning. However, he then asserts that reason is the opposite of logic, and that there is no logic in fantasy. It is unclear how these statements are related to the resolution or his subsequent narrative.

He first gives the example of poison being unhealthy, which apparently entails that 'don't eat poisonous things to stay healthy' is logical and 'eat poisonous things to say healthy' is wrong. In fact, 'Poison is unhealthy' doesn't entail 'One shouldn't eat poisonous things to stay healthy'. It requires the hidden assumption 'If something is unhealthy, one shouldn't eat it to stay healthy'. In any case, one case of logic that involves cause and effect doesn't mean all logic involve cause and effect, let alone that logic can be equated with cause and effect.

My opponent then states that we cannot change logic, only our perceptions of it. I challenge this view. As Jackendoff (2012) stated, the principles we use in logic are ultimately based on human cognition. There's no way to prove our axiom that, for example, modus ponens is correct. He seems to believe that logic is an flawless entity 'out there' that cannot and will not change, but there is simply no evidence of such a system. Moreover, it is unclear how this statement relates to the resolution; if anything, added to the fact that I've shown that cause and effect is not a fixed concept, it disproves the resolution.

The next paragraph is rather opaque. He did not respond to my challenge that the weathering example proves a disparity betwen cause and condition, the latter of which is essential to logic.

My opponent then creates an equation in the form of
specified [sic] cause + effect = order
random cause + effect = chaos
order + chaos = the sum of all logic
Yet these are bare assertions with no corroboration of any form. The terms used are, moreover, undefined and vague, particularly 'order'. Oddly, in the course of presenting these equations, my opponent contradicts the resolution: 'The cause you are at the library might not be logic at all'. He concedes that a cause may not be logic.

For example two, my opponent misunderstands my argument. My first example demonstrates causation, and the second demonstrates conditions. Causation is transitive; conditions are not. My opponent is right that the second 'goes again' cause and effect - that's why cause and effect can't be conflated with logic.

For example 3, my opponent confuses necessary and sufficient conditions. Both are sufficient conditions, but neither is necessary. Consider this scheme:

T: The house is hit by a tsunami.
O: The house is hit by a tornado.
C: The house collapses.

C -> T and C -> O are not true, since both disasters alone would have caused the collapse without the other. Thus, neither is a necessary condition (although they are sufficient conditions: O -> C and T -> C).

To clarify, I meant in my preemption example that John is the cause of the movement of the original stationary ball. I hope this clears things up.

My oponent proceeds to assert that nature is causation, that cause and effect have no beginning or end, and that cause and effect is 'necessity of motion'. Yet it's unclear how these are related to logic.

As for the coin and marble experiment, I was trying to demonstrate that cause and effect is based on human psychology and not logic. Again, the conclusion from the experiment is that cause and effect is based on force dynamics. Frank's action was necessary for the coin to land tails, but it was not the cause of the coin landing tails.

My opponent equates action an reaction to cause and effect. Within force dynamics, this does have some metaphorical value. He then states that intuition is reasoning. However, the relationship of either of these to logic has not been established.

Finally, my opponent responds to my last argument by saying 'which is to say its not about cause and effect.. but it might still be logic'. This is another concession. He has admitted that there are examples of cause and effect that are not logic.

Finally, he asserts that logic is only about physical and sensory experience. This is clearly untrue. For example, the following syllogism is deemed logical:

P1) Unicorns are fluffy.
P2) Fluffy things can time-travel.
C) Unicorns can time-travel.

I won't present the full logical proof here, as it is rather tedious, but this syllogism shows that objects absent in sensory experience can still be constrained by logic.

Conclusion

My opponent has twice conceded that the resolution is false, did not refute any of my points, and failed to establish any coherent arguments for the resolution.

(1) Jackendoff, R. (2012). A user's guide to thought and meaning. Oxford University Press.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

fantasy=reason, not logic

ok so, is it moral for a mother to feed her child a poisonous non existent mushroom? my point is simply without the mushroom you cant determine that, the mushroom or health of apple determine wheather or not they are good to eat

it isnt necessary to define more then 1 cause to define a cause

there is logic of the mind, like love has to end with pain

reason=logic experience of it
logic=cause effect

"my opponent contradicts the resolution: 'The cause you are at the library might not be logic at all'. He concedes that a cause may not be logic."
intent is mental cause, mental is not true, logic is true... you have a point, but to argue that reason is logic is the same as arguing white is black.. because white can not exist without black, so on that level it is true that reason is logic, but its also true that truth is lies, because i cant tell a lie without truth.. to me this all adds up to a not so usefull equation or way to look at it but it is necessary to know.. see it? its a level of, is is not, there is no is without the perception of not, but on this level anything you say is true.. rabbits cant exist without white, stones are rabbits because of the necessety of the existence of matter for them to exist at all, but no one argues that stones are rabbits.. i have no idea if you can understand what im saying here

there is no condition without a cause, i dont understand how you think there is a difference..

i dont see an argument in your example 2

both the tsunami and tornado are necessary conditions to consider for the house to keep standing

franks action was necessary for the coin to land tails, and if frank never flipped the coin, it would have never been tails by his actions

you cant have an action without a cause or a reaction without an effect

"Finally, my opponent responds to my last argument by saying 'which is to say its not about cause and effect.. but it might still be logic'. This is another concession. He has admitted that there are examples of cause and effect that are not logic."
you didnt talk about causation

are you only certain of your physical experience? no

life and death is certain

how is it logical that unicorns are fluffy? have you seen a unicorn

i have refuted everything you have said so far.. only 1 example of a cause is sufficient to define all causes
Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

I thank my opponent for his detailed reply. I will now respond to his points one by one.

Firstly, my opponent continues to elaborate the 'fantasy' point, saying that we cannot determine whether a mushroom is good to eat without a mushroom. I cannot agree more, but it is still unclear how this is related to the relationship between logic and causation. I have inferred that he's using this as an example of logic involving cause and effect. But it's not clear what sort of logic was involved here and what the cause and effect are; besides, as I have stated before, one example of logic and cause and effect being related doesn't mean the two can be equated.

My opponent has to elucidate this to prove his point. Likewise, I ask that my opponent explain the meaning of 'it isnt necessary to define more then 1 cause to define a cause', for it remains opaque.

My opponent then claims that 'there is logic of the mind, like love has to end with pain', and presents us with two equations. Again, these are merely bare assertions, and it's unclear what 'reason = logic experience of it' means, or how love is related to the matter at hand.

My opponent then states that 'intent is mental cause', then that 'mental is not true, logic is true'. The problem is that only statements can be true or false. 'Mental' and logic aren't statements, so they can't be classified as true or false (although systems of logic can be sound or unsound, complete or incomplete). He goes on to use an analogy. I understand him to mean that 'the existence reason and logic depend on each other, but two be equated'. However, it's unclear how this is related to the resolution or my statement above. Moreover, he has previously agreed with me that logic is the study of the correct principles of reasoning.

He then claims that 'there is no condition without a cause', and why I thought there wasa difference. However, I've already shown with three examples, a psychological experiment and an additional example in the third round that conditions (used in logic) and cause are not the same.

My opponent misunderstands what a necessary condition is. If A is a necessary condition of B, then if B is true, then A must be true. Let A be 'A tsunami occured' and B be 'The house collapsed'. If B is true, we cannot conclude that A is true because the house could have collapsed because of the tornado alone.

My opponent was correct in saying that 'franks action was necessary for the coin to land tails.' He apparently concedes the validity of my argument by saying 'if frank never flipped the coin, it would have never been tails by his actions.' I understand this to mean that Frank did not cause the coin to land tails, i.e. Frank's action was a necessary condition but not a cause.

My opponent then says that 'you cant have an action without a cause or a reaction without an effect', but it's not clear how this is related to logic.

My opponent responds to my statement, 'Finally, my opponent responds to my last argument by saying 'which is to say its not about cause and effect.. but it might still be logic'. This is another concession. He has admitted that there are examples of cause and effect that are not logic.' by claiming that 'you didnt talk about causation'. Yet I did - I said that my being a boy doesn't cause my status as a male.

My opponent then says that physical experiences aren't the only things we're certain of. This is true, but again it's not clear how it's related to our resolution.

He goes on to claim that 'how is it logical that unicorns are fluffy? have you seen a unicorn'. However, I never claimed it was logical that unicorns are logical, only that the syllogism was logically valid. My opponent seems to misunderstand the nature of logic. Logic has the property of topic neutrality. It can talk about whatever we want. We can even refer to entities that don't exist, as long as they're in the universe of discourse. Moreover, I've never claimed the premises were true. An argument can be valid without being sound, i.e. we're saying that IF the premises are true, THEN the conclusion is true, but we never claimed that the premises are true.

Conclusion

Contrary to my opponent's claim, he has not refuted everything I have said so far. He seemed to have dropped my weathering, preemption and transitivity arguments, and has not given sound arguments to argue against my other points. Moreover, he is yet to present a coherent case of his own to support the resolution, although the BOP is on him.

(1) http://philosophy.hku.hk...
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

by the apple in my hand, i can tell if its good to eat, logic=matter=true

i like that you guys think you are somehow right about anything you say, while not even science has a foot in this gigantic spaceship from way beyond

a cause is a cause, define a cause and you have defined them all for the definition to fit a cause

mental emotions are 50/50, while there is only 1 true positive emotion, its joy.. joy us pure

only statements can be true or false? is an apple a statement?

sound is not a statment

you simply... can not have an uncaused condition.. demonstrate an uncaused condition of any kind does exist

the house and tsunami is an example of a mystery, logic is true

franks action is the cause that the coin landed tails by his actions.. very simple really

male=boy(clearly not causation unless you want to argue that being male causes you to be a boy)

no concession.. logic is absolute, logic is true, there is no true without cause and effect

logic=log i see

logic is true, reason is fantasy

i have utterly refuted anything you have said.. awaiting my unchallenged profs to be refuted in any way

you are con... you show why i am wrong, i have no burden if you have no counter to present
Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

by the apple in my hand, i can tell if its good to eat, logic=matter=true

This example has very little to do with logic. Logic is about the principles of correct reasoning. Looking at an apple (or feeling it in your hand), then making judgements about it, may make use of logical principles (e.g. a modus ponens: If an apple is black, then it's bad. This apple is black. Thus it's bad), but it is not inherently tied to logic.

i like that you guys think you are somehow right about anything you say, while not even science has a foot in this gigantic spaceship from way beyond

This is an ad hominem. I have never implied that I am somehow right about anything I say. As a debater (and, admittedly, a fairly inept one), I am more than willing to accept that I am sometimes wrong; in fact, I have often changed my opinions because of influence from others. This doesn't mean I should accept opinions that I do not find reasonable or well-supported. Besides, this is a debate after all: obstinacy is expected.

a cause is a cause, define a cause and you have defined them all for the definition to fit a cause

My opponent's new paraphrase has not improved clarity. What do you mean by define one, and you've defined them all? What is the definition? How is this related to equating logic with causation?

mental emotions are 50/50, while there is only 1 true positive emotion, its joy.. joy us pure

My opponent again presents a bare assertion that mental emotions are 50/50 and joy is the only true positive emotion. It's not clear how this is related to the resolution.

only statements can be true or false? is an apple a statement?sound is not a statment

It's true that only statements can be true or false in logic. Truth value is actually a litmus test to test whether a string of words is a statement. (1) So no, apple isn't a statement, and has no truth value. 'Sound' isn't a statement either (though 'this argument is sound' is a statement).

you simply... can not have an uncaused condition.. demonstrate an uncaused condition of any kind does exist

Assuming that 'uncaused condition' refers to conditions that are not causes, I have already provided an example (under transitivity). I can give another example if you want. Handing in all my assignments is a necessary condition for me to get an A in my logic course, but it itself cannot cause me to get an A.

the house and tsunami is an example of a mystery, logic is true

It is not scientific to merely dismiss an exception as a 'mystery', instead of directly addressing why it seems to be inconsistent with your idea. Scientific theorists can leave out 'holes' in their theory to be resolved later, but only when the rest of their theory is well-supported enough.

franks action is the cause that the coin landed tails by his actions.. very simple really

If my opponent argues for this, he would have to explain why the majority of participants in the experiment judged that Frank did not cause the coin to land tails. He would have to adopt a version of semantic externalism even more extreme than Putnam's. Under Putnam's theory, he can't tell between elm and beech, but he still knows they're different and relies on an expert to know it. In short, he argues that the intentions of the two are the same in his head, but the extensions are not. However, for my opponent's opinion to stand, meaning is not only external of intention, but can also be inconsistent with people's judgement of the extensions of words. That would be inconsistent with our normal semantic triangle model of meaning (2).

If my opponent decides to take up his extreme externalist stance, I can argue against that, but I first have to make sure my opponent really believes in such a stance, as I don't want to strawman him.

male=boy(clearly not causation unless you want to argue that being male causes you to be a boy)

My opponent is right that it certainly doesn't cause anything. However, under logic, me being a boy is a sufficient condition for me being male, and me being male is a necessary condition of me being a boy. (Incidentally, 'male' and 'boy' are not the same - one of the most famous examples in decompositional semantics is that words like 'boy' is made up of features like [+male], [+human] and [+young].) (3)

no concession.. logic is absolute, logic is true, there is no true without cause and effect

Again, I repeat this: logic cannot be true or false, only sound or unsound, complete or incomplete. A system of logic is sound iff in the case that A is derivable from B, B entails A; a system of logic is complete iff in the case that B entails A, A is derivable from B. Either way, logic cannot be 'true'. 'There is no true without cause and effect' is again a bare assertion, and I can provide a quick counterexample: analytic truths. The statement 'DDO either exists or doesn't exist' is an a priori truth that doesn't hinge on cause and effect.

logic=log i see

My opponent now presents a folk etymology, but it's inaccurate - the word is ultimately derived from Greek logike 'reasoning'. (1) Moreover, it's unclear how this is related to cause and effect.

logic is true, reason is fantasy

I repeat what I have written above: logic can't be true or false, and logical deduction is a type of reasoning, since logic studies the principles of correct reasoning.

i have utterly refuted anything you have said.. awaiting my unchallenged profs to be refuted in any way

I have challenged every pertinent point my opponent has hitherto raised. The onus is not on me to decipher or surmise the implications of points like 'loves ends with pain' if my opponent cannot demonstrate its relevance to the resolution.

you are con... you show why i am wrong, i have no burden if you have no counter to present

As the resolution is a positive statement and my opponent is on the Pro side, he has the burden of proof. Contrary to what my opponent has written, I have presented numerous rebuttals, but my opponent will not respond to most of them. I will note in passing that my opponent is no longer responding to a few of my counter-arguments, including the one for 'fantasy' and most of my accusations of irrelevance.

(1) http://philosophy.hku.hk...
(2) http://inmyownterms.com...
(3) Saeed, J. I. (2003). Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
(4) http://etymonline.com...

Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

bad apple=memory of a good apple

how do you reason correctly about if its right or wrong to eat the non existent apple in your hand?

so its logical to eat a black apple?

apple=healthy(logic)
logical=eat apples
illogical=eat black deadly apple
Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

bad apple=memory of a good apple
Again, this is a bare assertion, and it's not clear how this is related to the resolution or even the present argument.

how do you reason correctly about if its right or wrong to eat the non existent apple in your hand?
Again, how is this related to equating to logic and cause and effect?

so its logical to eat a black apple?
There's nothing illogical about eating a black apple. For example:
P1) If I want to kill myself, I should eat a bad apple.
P2) I want to kill myself.
C) I should eat a bad apple.

This is a valid syllogism.

apple=healthy(logic)
logical=eat apples
illogical=eat black deadly apple
My opponent seems to misunderstand what it means for something to be 'logical'. An action itself cannot be logical or illogical. Logic does not study what to do in the situation. It studies the principles of reasoning that apply to every situation.

Modifying the above syllogism, I get this:

P1) If I want to kill myself, I should eat a black deadly apple.
P2) I want to kill myself.
C) I should eat a black deadly apple.

This is still a logically valid syllogism.

Conclusion
My opponent misunderstands the very concept of 'logic'. His arguments are either irrelevant to the resolution (or never shown to be relevant), or deductively invalid and inductively weak. He has not made a sound argument to counter my points, and has not fulfilled his BOP. Therefore, the motion must not stand.
Debate Round No. 5
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Unbelievable.Time// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con shows that cause and effect cannot be equated with logic in his first round of this debate. The examples that Con use are sufficient to counter what Pro brought up so far. Pro had dropped whatever case that Con built in this debate. It is an objective win for Con. Only Con links sources in this debate.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter does have to do more to award source points. Merely stating that one side has sources while the other doesn't is insufficient " the voter has to explain why those sources were relevant to the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by fire_wings 10 months ago
fire_wings
Yeah.
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
sidenote
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
if you cant counter my arguments, that means they are true, or you dont understand them
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 10 months ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
@fire_wings: Agreed, he's improved substantially since I last debated him, though his arguments are still somewhat abstruse and irrelevant...
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 10 months ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
@triangle: lol, but it's fun!
Posted by fire_wings 10 months ago
fire_wings
vi_spex is doing quite well.
Posted by triangle.128k 10 months ago
triangle.128k
@Diqiucun You're investing too much effort in this debate... lol. All you need to do is counter-troll vi_spex.
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
reason=logic+experience of it*
Posted by vi_spex 11 months ago
vi_spex
example 3 got a bit messy
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 10 months ago
Unbelievable.Time
vi_spexDiqiucun_CunminTied
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: Con shows that cause and effect cannot be equated with logic in his first round of this debate. The examples that Con use are sufficient to counter what Pro brought up so far. Pro had dropped whatever case that Con built in this debate. It is an objective win for Con.