The meaning of something being illogical is not the same as the phrase "outside of logic" or separate from logic.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Whatever you find as not correct, quote it and explain how it is not factual or true.
So when we go beyond or OUTSIDE that line , we're outside logic. That's because logic is inside the realm in which it manifests in concept into thinking into the physical matter .
The term logic if it hasn't been established already by what I've stated so far is what is used in thinking of information that has been processed from a reality presented to us from which there is a basis for validity making principles.From these principles we can think, speak,move , operate within the real world .
Now when we have invalid information, incorrect information, inconsistent information which shows improbability, impossibility, that's called illogical.It's not established or founded on what is possible INSIDE reality. Pay attention to the words "inside" and "outside".
So how do we know we have invalid information? It has been demonstrated. The miscalculation has been demonstrated. The inconsistencies, contradictions , errors have been explained based on the rules of logic.
It is tested, it is countered with the known facts, known principles, known laws , natural laws of the universe to corroborate and verify whether something or a conclusion is logical or illogical.This is all within the realm of logic that this can be decided.
concession
Pro is arguing that anything outside of conventional logic is not semantically identical to the term "illogical." Con argues the opposite.
Pro mentions that the rules of logic are limited to this universe and human comprehension/perception, so anything existing outside the confines of this universe are not subject to our same laws, so these differences being too convoluted would be declared as being outside of logic. But that doesn't mean it's illogical. Pro uses the example of Jesus using his divine powers to walk on water, which is impossible given our current scientific knowledge. Pro cites this example to defend that divinity rarely aligns with our expectations of what is logical.
Con begins round 1 by strawmanning Pro when he declares Pro must argue that illogical is inside of logic. Imposing a framework like this is acceptable, but not without a valid justification. Con doesn't provide an explanation for why Pro must defend this version of the resolution and Con provides no rebuttals for any of Pro's arguments, nor does he make any of his own. This either demonstrates Con has not read Pro's round 1, or he lacks an understanding of Pro's round 1.
In round 2, Pro doesn't provide a response. But instead simply asks if Con has a rebuttal to anything he said.
Con quotes one of Pro's lines from Round 1 about logic not materializing outside of the universe and retorts that theories can be illogical or outside of logic, but this isn't actually a response to Pro, more of a sideline non-response as it doesn't address anything Pro was talking about. Con proceeds to misrepresent Pro's argument by implying that Pro must continue arguing that illogical is inside of logic. Con explains that the rules of logic can be used to identify what is logical, but doesn't disprove or argue against anything Pro was saying. He just restates what he believes is Pro's position.
Round 3, Pro explains that Con's framework is a misunderstanding of the resolution. Pro refutes Con's arguments by stating that theories are not outside of logic, as theories are logical and thus within the confines of rules of logic. Pro continues to give examples of how being "outside of logic" is not the same as "logical." As what exists outside the universe is outside of conventional logic, but not illogical.
Con forfeits this round.
Round 4, Pro extends his arguments and announces Con has resigned from the debate. Con substantiates this claim.
Round 5, Pro expresses frustration by telling future debaters to understand his position before accepting the debate to avoid wasting time. Con formally thanks Pro for the debate.
So for arguments, Pro is clearly outclassing Con because he defends his position adequately and gives his justifications. Con attempts to insert a framework, which is a misdirection of Pro's intended position of what he should argue and I might have accepted this, if Con could have successfully explained why Pro should have argued this. But not only does Con not contribute his own constructive arguments, he ignores 99% of what Pro said and gives no rebuttals. It was a sheer lack of effort and laziness from Con's side, so Pro gets the point for arguments.
Neither side provided sources, so I'm leaving this tied.
Spelling, grammar, and font was decent from both ends, so this is tied.
Pro might have gotten the point for conduct, since Con forfeited. However, Con messaged Pro outside the debate to inform him he was conceding, which shows full communication through transparency instead of wasting Pro's time by ignoring him. Pro gives Con credit for this and Con acknowledges this happened (both of their own words, not mine.), so I will not deduct a point for conduct. In the end because Con thanks Pro for the debate and shows respect and both sides displayed an equal level of respect and conduct, so I'm leaving this tied.
basically an FF I give conduct only because the other side had 2 Rounds of 5 with debating.
I just dont see what else my opponent can argue to prove his side of the topic.
Ultimatelly, he has to argue that logic partially consists of illogical, or that illogical partially consists of logic.
So yes, he must argue that logic is not entirely logic, or that illogical is not entirely illogical.
Thats what his side of the topic leads to by commonly understood definitions.
"I assume that's what the debate will be about.
Since illogical must not be "outside of logic", for my opponent to prove his case.
Or illogical must not be "separate from logic".
So really, my opponent must argue that some part of illogical is part of logic, or that some part of logic is part of illogical."
That is generally absurd, part of illogical being part of logic doesn't necessarily determinate whether if a thing is a thing or whether if a thing is not a thing, these patterns are not entirely deterministic of the certain situation you're implying, unless if the opponent manifests his own patterns that are entirely deterministic.
I assume thats what the debate will be about.
Since illogical must not be "outside of logic", for my opponent to prove his case.
Or illogical must not be "separate from logic".
So really, my opponent must argue that some part of illogical is part of logic, or that some part of logic is part of illogical.
I understand.
By the way, I made a typo in comment #1," can mean that "illogical" does have logic but not to a limiting extent"
The correct phrase is "can mean that "illogical" does have logic but to a limiting extent"
Yes, this depends on definitions of each word in the topic.
I accepted because I am curious what arguments will my opponent use.
"The meaning of something being illogical is not the same as the phrase "outside of logic" or separate from logic."
If you are arguing with semantics, then here are definitions to argue with as well:
characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning. (A definition of "logical" from Oxford's languages)
lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning. (A definition of "illogical" from Oxford's languages)
If the meaning of something being illogical is separate from logic, then the meaning of something being illogical can be considered illogical.
Illogical means lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning, it does not mean that something does not have sense or clear or sound reasoning, but rather means that it has a lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.. which in conclusion can mean that "illogical" does have logic but not to a limiting extent that limiting extent can be the considered "lacking".
Regardless, concluding whether if it is "outside of logic" or "separate from logic" can be a little vague, but judging from this level of vagueness, the term "illogical" can be considered "separate from logic" since "logic" and "illogical" are separate from each other. Their definitions is also what differentiates them, allowing them to be "separate from each other".
In total conclusion, "illogical" is also separate from "logic", semantically argued.