logic is cause and effect
sum of all logic=chaos+order
logical=dont drink poisonous things to stay healthy
illogical=drink poisonous things to stay healthy
logic is true, logic is absolute, reality is logic
Rules and definitions
You neglected to establish any set of rules, therefore I'll assume you favor a more open style of debate. However, I'm afraid I must insist you refrain from introducing new arguments in your closing argument. Instead, please respond to my arguments or reinforce previously stated ones.
Your opening statement is highly vague, so I'm going to assume those were not statements of definition but rather statements of opinion towit: we both will proceed without any defined definitions, as I cannot force you to accept any I assert.
What is logic?
Broadly construed, logic is a fundamental set of rules which things or events in this universe must follow. The statement "A=A" is a logical statement, for example. There is no time in which A will not be precisely equal to A. These statements can get more complex: "If some A's are B's, all B's are A's, and some B's are C's, then it follows that some C's are A's".
My opponent has misunderstood what logic actually is. I suspect what he thinks is logic is actually another thing called causality.
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org...
What is causality?
Causality (or cause and effect) is the concept that an effect follows an event. If you do thing A then thing B will occur. Causality can either be construed as "A human explanation for why things happen" or as "A rule followed in this universe by which an effect is connected to an event"
Yet again though, my opponent's statements do not reflect what causality is. If his statements were not causality related, and not logic related, what are they? He is making If/Ought statements, but leaving out the if and only stating the ought.
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org...
What are If/Ought statements?
Essentially, everything which says something ought to be this way or someone ought to do something is an if/ought statement. All oughts, then, require an if.
We ought to go to the movies IF we want to have a good time.
You ought not kill your father IF you don't want the consequences of that to happen.
You oughtn't drink soda IF you want healthy teeth.
Notice two things about If/Ought statements:
First, they require agency- saying a rock ought to do something doesn't make any sense because the rock has no ability to chose.
Second, they all rely on causality. You ought to do action A if you want result B BECAUSE action A causes action B.
Going over my opponent's statements:
I am not sure I am understanding this right because it is self contradictory. Randomness and specificity are opposites. "(a)+(-a)=0" is a logical statement. So far as I can tell, my opponent has stated the illogical unless it can be demonstrated that whatever represents "cause" is always equal to 0.
This isn't a logical statement, and it isn't really a statement of fact either, since healthy things can become poisonous things if dosages are altered. This is a tangential medical point, so I'll stipulate that value "poison" is deleterious to human life.
"logical=dont drink poisonous things to stay healthy"
"illogical=drink poisonous things to stay healthy"
These are not logical statements. They are If/Ought statements. "If you want to stay healthy then you oughtn't drink poison" would be the proper format. You could also turn it into a statement of naturalistic causality: "Poison causes things to be unhealthy" but as I mentioned before, this isn't entirely true. The statement "Poison causes things to be healthy" would be a kind-of-false statement of causality- NOT a logical statement.
"logic is true"
I'm not even going to try to unpack this because it is an epistemological statement and it would take WAY to long to go over, so I'll stipulate that it's true.
" logic is absolute"
I'm not sure what is meant by this, but I think I can agree to this. Logic is absolute in that it can produce absolute true/false values. Logic is also absolute in the sense that, so far as I can discern, all of reality must follow its dictates.
"reality is logic"
No. Logic is part of reality. A rock is not logic. A rock is a vast collection of subatomic particles which, although bound by logic, are not constructed of logic. Logic is to reality as a core operating system process is to a computer.
Logic and causality separate elements in our universe. If/ought statements are dependent on causal relationships, not logical relationships.
logic is true, reason is the opposite of logic
cause=random+specified(for a cause to exist)
you have claimed alot of things.. now show me any example of cause and effect that is not logic
An objection to my opponent's behavior:
If my opponent wishes me to respond to him in a traditional format then he must present a coherent argument, which he has not. As con I am allowed to present a counter-case for what logic is, which I did. My opponent has merely produced fragmented sentences claiming certain equalities to be true, to which I have responded.
My opponent failed to introduce any new arguments which are actually coherent or to further explain his position. I cannot add any productive input except to respond to the challenge he presented.
A response to my opponent's challenge:
As I said before, causality and logic are two different things.
"If you drink poison, then you will die"- this is a statement of cause and effect, and does not fall into the category of a logic statement. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org...
However, this debate is NOT "cause and effect is logic" rather, it is that "logic is cause and effect." I'll even make this into a logic problem! Let logic= A, let causality=B. "If all B's are A's, does it follow that all A's are B's?". Your position is that "All A's= All B's" and you're asking me to demonstrate this by showing that "Some B's are not A". Even if All B's are A's, it does NOT follow that all A's are B's.
For an example, let A=dog and let B=poodle.
"If all poodles are dogs, are all dogs poodles?"
In the same way, "If all cause-and-effect is logic, is all logic cause-and-effect?"
Are you beginning to realize what logic statements are?
all dogs are poodles on the level of awarness or life
what is a logic statemenet..
I must pass this round due to having nothing substantive to say. My opponent failed to understand my argument and failed to offer a coherent argument. I strongly encourage him to re-read everything I have written and to visit the links I have provided.
i will work on an explanation for next time i make a debate about logic.. sry
you said.. logic is part of reality.. ok which part of reality is not logic? or as i claim, cause and effect
Responding to my opponent's most recent comment
If you can't explain your conception of logic then you've failed to make a positive case for the proposition that "Logic is cause and effect". The meaning of your "Equations" seem apparent only to you, as I have no idea what you mean by them.
I cannot understand the slightest bit of what you mean by the following:
"sum of all logic=chaos+order"
You've made no arguments, only assertions. The majority of your assertions are not coherent. You failed to explain what you mean when you say:
reality is cause and effect
its a false statement to say all presidents are fish.. but if all presidents were fish it would be correct
My opponent has failed to make an argument. My opponent has made a series of assertions, to which I have responded to every single one of them, even the incoherent ones. My opponent has failed to make any definitions about what he means by logic and cause-and-effect., therefore I must assume that he uses the generally accepted definitions. I have defined both causality and logic using the widely accepted definitions and sourced wikipedia to support my definitions and explanations.
I should remind everyone that the debate is over "Logic is cause and effect". The argument is NOT "Cause and effect is logic." In other words "All A is B", not "All B is A". I have repeatedly demonstrated that "Some logic is NOT cause and effect". Therefore, all logic is not cause and effect and the proposition is refuted.
Having answered all my opponent has offered, and having refuted the main assertion that "logic is cause and effect", my opponent's claim that I failed is false. On the contrary, my opponent has failed to sufficiently fulfill his role as pro, and has admitted that he has not argued for his case.
It is my hope that my opponent will be able to collect and organize his thoughts on this topic before entering into another debate. I thank any readers of this debate for their time and I thank you in advance for taking the time to vote on this debate.
|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|