Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Are all arguments circular?

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 9:06:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 8:47:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Someone once told me this. Is this true?

All arguments either reduce to circular reasoning (truth is true), defeat themselves, or make no sense. However, not all circular arguments are the same. In order for circular reasoning to be considered valid, it must be general enough such that it applies to reality as a whole, and not a partial context within it.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 11:26:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 9:06:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/18/2014 8:47:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Someone once told me this. Is this true?

All arguments either reduce to circular reasoning (truth is true), defeat themselves, or make no sense.

Interesting. I don't buy this though, because to say 'truth is true' is circular is to assume that truth is true.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 11:27:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 11:26:39 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 7/18/2014 9:06:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/18/2014 8:47:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Someone once told me this. Is this true?

All arguments either reduce to circular reasoning (truth is true), defeat themselves, or make no sense.

Interesting. I don't buy this though, because to say 'truth is true' is circular is to assume that truth is true.

That's kinda the point.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 11:37:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"In order for circular reasoning to be considered valid, it must be general enough such that it applies to reality as a whole, and not a partial context within it."

Since if something is true, then it is no where false.
creedhunt
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 12:57:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 9:06:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
In order for circular reasoning to be considered valid, it must be general enough such that it applies to reality as a whole, and not a partial context within it.

Isn't that circular reasoning?
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 12:30:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
They may have been talking about this

http://en.wikipedia.org...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 11:24:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 11:37:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"In order for circular reasoning to be considered valid, it must be general enough such that it applies to reality as a whole, and not a partial context within it."

Since if something is true, then it is no where false.

This is assuming that which is true is always true.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 9:38:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 11:24:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/18/2014 11:37:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"In order for circular reasoning to be considered valid, it must be general enough such that it applies to reality as a whole, and not a partial context within it."

Since if something is true, then it is no where false.

This is assuming that which is true is always true.

Assuming? Well yes. The question, of course, is whether or not such an assumption is necessarily true.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 12:52:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 9:38:38 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/20/2014 11:24:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/18/2014 11:37:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"In order for circular reasoning to be considered valid, it must be general enough such that it applies to reality as a whole, and not a partial context within it."

Since if something is true, then it is no where false.

This is assuming that which is true is always true.

Assuming? Well yes. The question, of course, is whether or not such an assumption is necessarily true.

I believe all truth is partially true. The danger arises, as we see truth as being merely absolute. I believe there is an objectivity to truth, in as much as it is relative to the subjective mind.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 1:29:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 12:52:33 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/21/2014 9:38:38 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/20/2014 11:24:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/18/2014 11:37:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"In order for circular reasoning to be considered valid, it must be general enough such that it applies to reality as a whole, and not a partial context within it."

Since if something is true, then it is no where false.

This is assuming that which is true is always true.

Assuming? Well yes. The question, of course, is whether or not such an assumption is necessarily true.

I believe all truth is partially true. The danger arises, as we see truth as being merely absolute. I believe there is an objectivity to truth, in as much as it is relative to the subjective mind.

Truth is the basis on which the validity of truth itself can be determined. It is thus self-evidently true. If you want to argue with truth and claim that it is not absolute, then you undermine your own position, and cannot be taken seriously i.e. be considered right. From your previous posts, it is apparent that you think paradox must exist in order for truth and existence to have meaning. However, the exact opposite is true. Existence and truth derive their meaning from the exclusion of contradiction.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 6:11:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 8:47:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Someone once told me this. Is this true?

Arguments aren't necessarily circular. But arguments assume logic... which can't be proven. You just assume it. Why? Because you assume it. So yeah, logic is pretty circular.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 6:13:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes all arguments are circular, but this argument is also circular so it evens out -_-
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 7:26:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 1:29:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/21/2014 12:52:33 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/21/2014 9:38:38 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/20/2014 11:24:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/18/2014 11:37:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"In order for circular reasoning to be considered valid, it must be general enough such that it applies to reality as a whole, and not a partial context within it."

Since if something is true, then it is no where false.

This is assuming that which is true is always true.

Assuming? Well yes. The question, of course, is whether or not such an assumption is necessarily true.

I believe all truth is partially true. The danger arises, as we see truth as being merely absolute. I believe there is an objectivity to truth, in as much as it is relative to the subjective mind.

Truth is the basis on which the validity of truth itself can be determined. It is thus self-evidently true. If you want to argue with truth and claim that it is not absolute, then you undermine your own position, and cannot be taken seriously i.e. be considered right. From your previous posts, it is apparent that you think paradox must exist in order for truth and existence to have meaning. However, the exact opposite is true. Existence and truth derive their meaning from the exclusion of contradiction.

I never said truth is not absolute. I said it is not exclusively absolute.

Saying existence and truth derive their meaning from the exclusion of contradiction is only partly true. To make such a statement, conclusively, is to ignore the fact life is not always, in agreement. In fact, life is rife with contradiction. That which is true is not always true. To say so is to say meaning has a single value, it is without variance, opposition, or division. This is to completely ignore the other side of life.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 8:12:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 6:52:38 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/18/2014 8:47:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Someone once told me this. Is this true?

No.

Best answer so far xD
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 8:17:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 8:12:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 7/21/2014 6:52:38 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/18/2014 8:47:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Someone once told me this. Is this true?

No.

Best answer so far xD

I do what I can.
Tsar of DDO