Debate Now Logical Debate Forum?

[Anomalism]

It's complicated.

I know of 10 different pronouns we can use depending on their state of mind if they are, indeed, and arbiter.

Go ahead and define the word for the class. Lol

 

[Votto]

Go ahead and define the word for the class. Lol

Like I said, it's complicated

I require a biologist and a slide ruler, neither of which I have at the moment.

 

[Anomalism]

Like I said, it's complicated

I require a biologist and a slide ruler, neither of which I have at the moment.

It's really not very complicated. Maybe you should just Google the definition of the word.

 

[konradv]

Never? And in politics especially?

Interesting...

I'm not talking about arguing politics, but employing the subject of logic as a tool. Logic isn't opinion. It has rigid rules and, if they're not followed, any conclusion reached goes out the window.

 

[Grumblenuts]

All players must be able to recognize a "well-formed formula" (WFF in Łukasiewicz notation), to assemble dice values into valid statements (WFFs) and to apply the rules of logical inference so as to complete a proof.[1] Games are played by two or more people. The first player to rolls the cubes sets a WFF as a Goal. Each player then tries to construct (with whatever is available) a complete logical proof of the goal. The Solution to the goal is the Premises which they started their proof with, and the Rules they used to get to the Goal.

 

[jwoodie]

You don't seem very logical to me.

Seeming logical is an oxymoron. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. Get it?

 

[konradv]

Seeming logical is an oxymoron. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. Get it?

You have to watch out. Just because a statement is logical, doesn't mean it's true. True logic is blind and depends on its premises being true for the conclusion to be true, despite its logical consistency. I think such a forum would be impossible to moderate and, if not done so strictly, would be no different than the 'Clean Debate Zone'.

 

[Circe]

Racist

Besides, January 6th

ORANGE MAN BAD!!!

 

[Circe]

I might play if it got going. Sounds sort of interesting.

 

[candycorn]

Sounds like a good idea, but would require heavy moderation, since many on the board don't have a clue as to what proper logic is.

Also... in this day and age, predominantly right wing loons continue to pretend that sites like the Gateway Pundit are on a par with the Associated Press or CNN. Clearly they know this is not the case but as a debating tool, it is effective. All one has to do is find a source on the internet (or make it themselves) and cite it to have an iron-clad "logical" argument. And yes, the left win has it's own subset of crazy websites too.

 

[MarathonMike]

The Clean Debate Zone is where that should be happening. And it does sometimes, but not often.

 

[jwoodie]

The Clean Debate Zone is where that should be happening. And it does sometimes, but not often.

There is a difference between clean debate and logical debate. The former moderates bad language and forbidden subjects, whereas the latter would identify and exclude invalid argumentation.

 

[jwoodie]

You have to watch out. Just because a statement is logical, doesn't mean it's true. True logic is blind and depends on its premises being true for the conclusion to be true, despite its logical consistency. I think such a forum would be impossible to moderate and, if not done so strictly, would be no different than the 'Clean Debate Zone'.

That is why I prefaced my premise with "If."

If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

Thus, the conclusion that A=C is both logical and true (by definition).

However, challenging a declarative premise is certainly within the boundaries of logical debate, unless the premise has already been agreed to.

I suppose a better name for my imagined forum would be Logical Reasoning. Within this scenario, challenges to premises would be noted but kept separate from proposed conclusions. The latter would be subject to the rules of logic. If a poster believes that these rules have been violated, he/she should specify the alleged violation. If this violation is disputed, the matter should be put to a vote of the participants.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Is it possible to have a Logical Debate Forum on USMB? This would require a succinct proposition, followed by relevant facts and logical conclusions drawn therefrom. Irrelevancies and logical fallacies would be identified and removed by majority vote. Is this possible?

We have the CDZ

 

[Cellblock2429]

Is it possible to have a Logical Debate Forum on USMB? This would require a succinct proposition, followed by relevant facts and logical conclusions drawn therefrom. Irrelevancies and logical fallacies would be identified and removed by majority vote. Is this possible?

/——/ I vote to send your delusional post to the Rubber Room.

 

[jwoodie]

We have the CDZ

Is that a premise or a conclusion?

 

[jwoodie]

/——/ I vote to send your delusional post to the Rubber Room.

I understand why you resent me.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I understand why you resent me.

/——/ Nah, I just laugh at your naivety.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Thus, the conclusion that A=C is both logical and true (by definition).

For example, humans eat cows and cows eat grass, so by the transitive property, humans eat grass. Unlike in math, just because the first two statements are true does not make the final “conclusion” true. The humor in the meme relies on the absurdity of attempting to use the transitive property outside of math.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ Cows eat grass, people smoke grass.