The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Forever23
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...
Forever23
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 608 times Debate No: 85087
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

apple=healthy
poison=unhealthy
Forever23

Con

logic=/= cause and effect

since

logic = understanding

understanding = relation + contrast

So:

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!
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

understanding is reason, logic is the opposite of reason, logic is true, imagination is false

poison=unhealthy(logic)
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
Forever23

Con

Logic- reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.) - Google

Logic = understanding + reason

Reason + Understanding = relation + contrast

Reason=/= imagination

since

reason = true

and

logic = true

So:

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

since before

apples= good
poison= bad

and the same applies nowadays.

Vote con!
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

logic is matter, understanding is information

reason=false+truth

poison is physical, understanding is mental

you cant commit suicide as sufficiently with just apples
Forever23

Con

logic =/= matter

logic = understanding + reason

understanding + reason = relation +contrast

reason = truth

poison= physical

understanding =mental

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.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

poison is logic, i understand that
Forever23

Con

In contrast to apples, poison is unhealthy for you.

So the chain goes:

logic= understanding

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.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

you dont have to ever experience apples to know poison is bad for you

comparison is in separation, separation is information
Forever23

Con

You dont have to experience apples to know that poison is bad. I agree.

You can still compare the two without experience.

My theory therefore still applies.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tejretics// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). 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.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains his view of the debate and comes to a decision from the arguments given and a reasonable perception of BoP. The voter is not required to address sources in his RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: bballcrook// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Sources, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com...

[*Reason for removal*] While the voter does explain his view on the arguments sufficiently, merely saying that only one side used sources while the other did not. The voter has to point out how those sources contributed to the debate, and not merely state that their presence alone warrants the points.
************************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
so compare gods face to the alien i just made up with a funny hat on his head
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 10 months ago
tejretics
vi_spexForever23Tied
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 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.