Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Necessities and Possibilities

Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2014 7:25:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Say in a debate that the proponent offers:

P1
P2
P3

The opponent counters:

P1

Does the proponent still win because P2 and P3 aren't countered?
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2014 1:56:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/19/2014 7:25:59 AM, Daktoria wrote:
Say in a debate that the proponent offers:

P1
P2
P3

The opponent counters:

P1

Does the proponent still win because P2 and P3 aren't countered?

Depends.

If P2 and P3 are dependent on P1 as a central tenant then maybe not.
NightofTheLivingCats
Posts: 2,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2014 2:04:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/19/2014 1:56:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 2/19/2014 7:25:59 AM, Daktoria wrote:
Say in a debate that the proponent offers:

P1
P2
P3

The opponent counters:

P1

Does the proponent still win because P2 and P3 aren't countered?

Depends.

If P2 and P3 are dependent on P1 as a central tenant then maybe not.

Dis guy got it.

Think of this:

P1 All gingers are hot
P2 I am a ginger
C1 I am hot.

If you refute P1, then the argument fails. I may still be a good-looking guy, but not because am a ginger.

This is a sh!t example though.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2014 2:13:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The way a syllogism (which is what you're suggesting) works is as a logical sequencing of events, essentially. It's essentially saying "I have A. If A is true, then I have B. And if B is true, then I have C. So since I have A, then I have C."

To draw it out more simply:

A

If A, then B

If B, then C

So if A, then C.

It can get a little more complicated than that, but that's the nuts and bolts of it.

The problem with this type of argument is that it's really easy to derail the entire thing by just focusing all your attention on one part. If I can prove that B doesn't lead to C, then it doesn't matter if A is true or that A leads to B, because A can't lead to C anymore. The same applies with me just disproving A or that A leads to B.

So in short, probably yes. I'd need to see the specific arguments to know for certain, but it's 99% likely to be the case.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 5:26:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To be clear, we're not talking about a single syllogism that leads to a conclusion.

We're talking about three different syllogisms. The proponent proposes all three, but the opponent only refutes one while the other two are ignored.

The opponent continues to ignore them throughout the debate.

Perhaps the proponent points out how the opponent ignored them or not.

The syllogisms are independent of each other, but each proves the argument separately.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 9:38:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Perhaps you should just link us to the debate you're talking about so we can see just what you're trying to say >.>
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 10:07:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It depends on the nature of the proposition. Suppose the resolution is "A is true."

Then,

P1: A is true because a mathematical proof is shown.
P2: A is true because most people say it is true.
P3: A is true because my grandfather says it's true, and he knows.

P1 is not countered, but P2 and P3 are properly countered and shown invalid. So does Con win, because the arguments are two for Con and one for Pro? No, all it takes is one valid proof to carry the proposition. Similarly, if Con offers one valid proof that A is false, then the proposition fails.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 10:17:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 10:07:33 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
It depends on the nature of the proposition. Suppose the resolution is "A is true."

Then,

P1: A is true because a mathematical proof is shown.
P2: A is true because most people say it is true.
P3: A is true because my grandfather says it's true, and he knows.

P1 is not countered, but P2 and P3 are properly countered and shown invalid. So does Con win, because the arguments are two for Con and one for Pro? No, all it takes is one valid proof to carry the proposition. Similarly, if Con offers one valid proof that A is false, then the proposition fails.

Implicit in what Roy and what everyone else is saying is:

If P2 and P3 can prove the resolution true by themselves, then countering P1 and dropping P2 and P3 means a win for the side advancing the P's.

If P2 and P3 cannot prove the resolution true by themselves and P1 is necessary to prove the resolution, then the side advancing the P's cannot win if P1 is refuted.

If P1, P2, and P3 cannot prove the resolution true by themselves, then the side advancing them could never have won in the first place, so it's doesn't matter what the other side does.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)