The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Is circular reasoning always a logical fallacy?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
J-A-Moore has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 106796
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I don't think so. My mother: Do you want something to eat? Me: No, I'm not hungry. My Mom: Why not? Me: I just don't want to. Conclusion: I have used circular reasoning, but have not committed a fallacy. You can't turn everything in the debate.


Hi, I'm Josh and pleased to be taking this debate from you. As a heads up, I tend to be rather snarky. You may not feel like I show your religion the reverence you feel it deserves. I would like to make clear that while I won't go out of my way to offend you, I am not inclined to "walk on eggshells" as the saying goes. ;) you may consider this a trigger warning.

Regarding your opening comment:
Even if you did not know how to communicate it, the state of not being hungry is a physiological state of being. Your body has not triggered the physiological symptoms of requiring food. (a.k.a not hungry). In the example above you showed how a lack of ability to describe your reasoning led to a circular discussion, how ever the reasoning was not circular. You merely commented to the best of your ability, on your current state of needing or not needing food.

Yes: Circular reasoning is always a fallacy.
You cannot reach logical progression from a circular reasoning. I think we should cut to chase and not be coy about the point. we are discussing the validity of the bible. A thing often criticized for being circular in its reasoning and to which you very clearly believe in. In this context the circular reasoning is probably well known to you but for the benefit of our audience is as follows.

" The bible is the word of god"--/How do you know?/---> " God said so."--/Where?/---> "In the bible."

And so we see in this chain, that the bible is being self referenced. No actual progress can be made here, the account is second hand which makes it worse, but you see the same logic chain come up again and again. [Con] basically wants to rationalize this as being the same thing as his initial example, and at face value that might seem to work. In the biblical example, it could be said that Con would simply be answering as best as he can with out knowing how to phrase it any better. The communication of " I am not just not hungry" in his example could be compared to "because the bible said so". But the resemblance between the two statements ends when you consider context.

The Human body, is a intricate and complex system of countless organisms working together. Feelings of hunger and even for what you are craving, are controlled by a symbiotic relationship between the bacteria that live in your stomach to help break down food; and your stomach and brain, all of which are sending signals back and forth. There are all done automatically as far as you are concerned; you are not aware of the day to day operations of your body on this level. It is is there fore reasonable to not be able to clearly articulate the processes behind being hungry or not. This is of course leaving aside things you are aware of consciously like when you last ate.

Reasoning, has a purpose. You are trying to discover something, explain something, solve a problem. And when this is considered, the differences between the two things start to show. The 'Hungry conversation', and the 'biblical reasoning' are not the same thing. And because reasoning serves the purpose of informing a process ( discovery,explanation,problem solving) it is suited for rules both what to do and what not to do. The later is what we call fallacies. Circular reasoning is done by starting with a conclusion. Consider the following:

I say:"con is guilty of murder." and so, becvause I have acused him, we are now in front of cops, Con, and I. The cop would obviously ask me for proof, and could you imagine the look on his face if I said. " if he wasn't guilty, he wouldn't be here." --/which loops back into/--> "Con is guilty of murder."-> "I wouldn't accuse him if he wasn't."-->..etc. Fortunately modern courts don't accept this. Consider this further. there was a time where being accused of a crime by a noble or higher rank of noble, was the same as a conviction. The jsutification for why a nobleman could have convincted you merely with his opinion, is also a circular reasoning. Medieval europe beleived the aristroacy was ordained, the position of noble was given by god and so he was was justfied because he said so. :D

To conclude this round:
So, I've made a case that circular reasoning is not valid, in the "con is guilty" analogy, while addressing the differences between a reasoning and a statement, while also addressing your initial point. :D I hope you enjoyed the read.
Debate Round No. 1


I'm snarky too, and have no problem. I should specify that circular reasoning is usually a fallacy, but not always. Take the existance of God debate. Why does/doesn't He exist? That is just one example that defines the finite human mind.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by J-A-Moore 2 years ago
Wasn't able to get on in time.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.