logic is cause and effect
Debate Rounds (5)
logic = understanding
understanding = relation + contrast
apple= healthy. It can give you vitamins unlike poison.
poison= unhealthy. It is dangerous for the body unlike apples.
So, unlike poison, apples are healthy.
We are contrasting and comparing the two to understand them.
When we understand that, we see that in order to stay healthy, you eat the apple.
Now you use logic and eat the apple.
I will now be waiting for an argument from my opponent!
logical=dont eat poisonous things to stay healthy
illogical=eat poisonous things to stay healthy
memory of logic is not logic, memory of logic is logical, never illogical.. truth is is in the past, now is true
Logic = understanding + reason
Reason + Understanding = relation + contrast
reason = true
logic = true
Poison= Unhealthy (understanding and reasoning)
So, unlike apples, you shouldnt eat poison ( relation + contrast)
Logic= Therefore, apples are superior to poison
memory of logic= logic
and the same applies nowadays.
poison is physical, understanding is mental
you cant commit suicide as sufficiently with just apples
logic = understanding + reason
understanding + reason = relation +contrast
reason = truth
But you can understand that physical poison is bad for you
= relation + contrast
You also understand that apples are healthy for you.
So now you understand and reason that apples are healthy
So, you use logic to not eat poison.
So the chain goes:
understanding= relation + contrast
In order to understand, you compare apples and poison.
So, you understand how apples are healthier and how poison is unhealthy.
Therefore, you will use logic and will not have poison for breakfast.
comparison is in separation, separation is information
You can still compare the two without experience.
My theory therefore still applies.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 10 months 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Vote on behalf of the Voter Union. Con has multiple analogies to back her point, but none of those necessarily are examples of "logic." Con also doesn't establish the mutual exclusivity of her theory with Pro's. Regardless, it was Pro's BoP to prove the resolution true. Pro has some example on poison being unhealthy, but doesn't even link that example to "cause and effect." I have no idea what Pro's hypothesis is, and says something about logic being matter. Con manages to refute that to some extent, showing that logic isn't physical, and is based on analysis of information. Pro has to prove that logic is made of cause and effect. But they completely fail on that aspect, since they don't even manage to show any relation between their arguments and the resolution. I have no idea how the poison analogy relates to the resolution, and Pro's arguments aren't explained. Pro's burden isn't fulfilled. Pro doesn't prove that logic is based on "cause and effect." Con wins on the BoP issue.
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.