Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 167
  1. #101
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,978
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Right! Which is why your logic chain is so flawed! I could come up with millions of impossible scenarios yet unless there are more details about the kinds of possible scenarios then is is an impossible question to answer!
    But then I never asked you any questions and neither does the logic chain so this issue is irrelevant to whether the logic chain is valid.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    That's why the burden on proof is on the one making the claim and you're the one making a claim that a tyrant is possible.
    Right. I made the claim and then supported it.

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

    THAT IS SUPPORT!


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Debates are performed on shared worlds and if we can't agree on the world then there is really no debate.
    Well, my logic chain is in reference to the world that we exist in right now. Are you referring to a different world?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don't see any problems with the baseball scenario but I see many many flaws in your tyrant scenario.
    Then I would think that you would like to share them and point out how the scenario could never happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And you need to provide details to narrow it down into something that we can both agree to. Hiding information that you should have (since it's your scenario) is just trolling.
    I disagree that I should have, or need, any more detail than what I already provided. The "future civil war" scenario has four details. I think that's enough for one to address it. If you disagree and therefore refuse to address it because you haven't received enough details, then you have no rebuttal to my argument. And that's fine with me.

    But I have continuously challenged you to support that more detail is needed before we can weigh in on whether the scenario is possible and I never get that support - just a repeat of the claim.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    If you don't want to provide details then don't but I will have to consider your scenario both incomplete and withdrawn and your logic chain flawed PER YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!
    You can think whatever you want to think. But there are rules to debate and at ODN a valid logic chain that supports its conclusion and likewise has not been shown to be incorrect at any point is valid support that the conclusion is correct. So my claim stands as supported by ODN rules.

    Mere opinion that that is not so doesn't really mean anything. So consider whatever you want to consider. But you have three options

    1. Rebut the logic chain
    2. Let my support stand and move to another point
    3. Cease responding entirely.

    I prefer you go with #2 but of course it's up to you.

  2. #102
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Right. I made the claim and then supported it.

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

    THAT IS SUPPORT!
    Since you yourself have stated that it doesn't matter what impossible scenarios I come up with then your 'logic' chain is reduced to:

    1. Your scenario must be considered possible
    2. Therefore, the scenario must be considered possible

    It's just a bare assertion of possibility! So it's not support at all!


    Well, my logic chain is in reference to the world that we exist in right now. Are you referring to a different world?
    Umm, it isn't. It's a "future world", 200 years in the future if I recall correctly. Are you forgetting your own scenario?


    Then I would think that you would like to share them and point out how the scenario could never happen.
    But you just said that it doesn't matter how many I came up with so the burden is on you to prove your own case.

    I disagree that I should have, or need, any more detail than what I already provided. The "future civil war" scenario has four details. I think that's enough for one to address it. If you disagree and therefore refuse to address it because you haven't received enough details, then you have no rebuttal to my argument. And that's fine with me.
    But I have continuously challenged you to support that more detail is needed before we can weigh in on whether the scenario is possible and I never get that support - just a repeat of the claim.
    It's not a claim - it is factually true that your scenario does not contain enough information to prove it possible:

    1. I proved it possible which means you should stop
    2. Since you're still holding out that there's a scenario that is true, that isn't my scenario, then you need to supply that information.
    3. Since you also state that my impossible scenarios are irrelevant then the evaluation cannot continue with *my* input, but *your's*, the one making the claims in the first place.


    You can think whatever you want to think. But there are rules to debate and at ODN a valid logic chain that supports its conclusion and likewise has not been shown to be incorrect at any point is valid support that the conclusion is correct. So my claim stands as supported by ODN rules.

    Mere opinion that that is not so doesn't really mean anything. So consider whatever you want to consider. But you have three options

    1. Rebut the logic chain
    2. Let my support stand and move to another point
    3. Cease responding entirely.

    I prefer you go with #2 but of course it's up to you.
    Um, I believe that you have defeated your own 'logic' chain by showing that any impossible scenario doesn't change anything. It's basically a assertion of truth on no grounds. You do see the flaw don't you?

    So in summary, your current position is that:

    1. You haven't been able to provide necessary details for the critical parts of your scenario.
    2. You've forgotten your own debate is not of this world "right now", a major point of yours to allow for possible changes.
    3. Your 'logic' chain has been exposed as an intellectual fraud. I hope never to see it again.

    So your entire thread of argument here lies in tatters. I suggest we move onto your next argument for 2A since you're not getting anywhere with this one.

  3. #103
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,978
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Since you yourself have stated that it doesn't matter what impossible scenarios I come up with then your 'logic' chain is reduced to:

    1. Your scenario must be considered possible
    2. Therefore, the scenario must be considered possible

    It's just a bare assertion of possibility! So it's not support at all!
    Wrong. I have supported that you have failed to show that because your scenario is impossible that means that my "FSW" scenario is impossible.

    So my chain stands because you did not successfully invalidate it.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Umm, it isn't. It's a "future world", 200 years in the future if I recall correctly. Are you forgetting your own scenario?
    Umm, this world in the future is still this world.

    But nice try at playing "gotcha".


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    But you just said that it doesn't matter how many I came up with so the burden is on you to prove your own case.
    I proved my own case with my logic chain.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It's not a claim - it is factually true that your scenario does not contain enough information to prove it possible:
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT this assertion. It will be ignored until it is supported.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    1. I proved it possible which means you should stop
    2. Since you're still holding out that there's a scenario that is true, that isn't my scenario, then you need to supply that information.
    3. Since you also state that my impossible scenarios are irrelevant then the evaluation cannot continue with *my* input, but *your's*, the one making the claims in the first place.
    Let me re-state an argument that you did not respond to address this.

    You presented a FCW (future civil war) scenario that is impossible. Of course there are countless other potential scenarios as well. So as far as whether they are possible or impossible, there are three options.

    1. They are all possible
    2. They are all impossible
    3. Some of possible and others are impossible.

    Since you have supported that there is at least one impossible scenario, we can eliminate option 1 and we have left over

    2. They are all impossible
    3. Some of possible and others are impossible.

    Either 2 or 3 can be true one we accept that there is an impossible scenario. But if option 3 is correct, then future tyranny is still possible. And since the existence of your scenario does not invalidate option 3, it likewise does not prove that the tyranny scenario is impossible.

    So in short, you impossible scenario does not show that a future tyranny cannot happen.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Um, I believe that you have defeated your own 'logic' chain by showing that any impossible scenario doesn't change anything. It's basically a assertion of truth on no grounds. You do see the flaw don't you?
    Nope. You will need to show that the FCW scenario is impossible to defeat the logic chain. What your impossible scenario doesn't change is the notion that FCW scenario can still happen, just like the Red Sox/Superman scenario does not show that it's impossible for them to win in 2020.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So in summary, your current position is that:

    1. You haven't been able to provide necessary details for the critical parts of your scenario.
    2. You've forgotten your own debate is not of this world "right now", a major point of yours to allow for possible changes.
    3. Your 'logic' chain has been exposed as an intellectual fraud. I hope never to see it again.
    1. Wrong
    2. It's the same world in the future
    3. Your opinion on the chain is just an opinion and you will cease seeing it when you actually defeat it.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So your entire thread of argument here lies in tatters.
    Your opinion is noted and discarded.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I suggest we move onto your next argument for 2A since you're not getting anywhere with this one.
    My support has not been close to defeated and I will maintain that it's valid until it is defeated.

    But then there's a decent chance it won't be that relevant to other points so feel free to move on to the next point.

  4. #104
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Wrong. I have supported that you have failed to show that because your scenario is impossible that means that my "FSW" scenario is impossible.

    So my chain stands because you did not successfully invalidate it.
    Your chain makes no longer makes sense but we're going around in circles and your propensity to repeat yourself continues to show you have nothing left to argue with.

    You don't have a chain as I showed earlier. Please address that point specifically and do not keep going around in circles asserting truth from nothing. All youíre doing is repeating the same tired logic chain that you defeated yourself.

    Umm, this world in the future is still this world.
    No, you said "the world that we exist in right now." A future world is not the same as the world "right now"!

    Your previous statement is describing the place and time. Your explanation does only addresses the place and I am saying you are inaccurate about the time.

    If you cannot honestly admit you made a mistake in forgetting your own argument, thereís really no more hope for this debate to continue Please do so and letís move on.

    Let me re-state an argument that you did not respond to address this.
    I don't think so! You don't keep generating stalling tactics with nonsensical logic when you haven't even tackled the basic question of your original 'logic' chain.

    I know you love that 'logic' chain so much but you have so much work to do before we can get to the meat of the discussion. I see that you have neither the facts or stamina to provide a case to support anything and you shoot yourself in the foot continuously by forgetting your own argument and defeating your own logic chain.

    You have a really long way to go before you can get your scenario (which you appear to have forgotten) into a state worth discussing and your logic chain is exposed as nonsense. We've been at this for several days and you have introduced zero new information, no new details with non forthcoming. You're relying a poor 'logic' to avoid having to supply such information, when it would be simpler just to provide the information in the first place. And then when your 'logic' is exposed as a bare assertion (i.e. not a chain at all but a tautological declaration that you're right) you start bringing in other nonsense.

    Let's face it - your scenario is a fantasy that that makes no difference to the fact that you have been wrong on every single point in this debate. You're relying on other nonsensical fantasies and examples of gun overkill with full knowledge of the risks (dead children). Much like the other easily defeated debater earlier who didn't know his facts, I suspect that you have no facts on your side either and you barely have an argument. Your position so shallow that it's barely qualifies as something worth debating and your dancing around the fact that you have nothing to present means that your opinions can be discarded.

    On top of that you keep forgetting the arguments despite repeating them ad-nauseum. And you're getting to the point where you're just going around in circles with yourself. Again.

    I suggest perhaps you take a breather and perhaps think of a new angle. This one fails every sniff test on detail, on plausibility, on logic and reason.
    Last edited by SharmaK; May 9th, 2018 at 05:00 AM.

  5. #105
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,978
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Your chain makes no longer makes sense but we're going around in circles and your propensity to repeat yourself continues to show you have nothing left to argue with.
    Your opinion on my logic chain is irrelevant. Whether you can, via an argument, show it's invalid is the only issue. And I continuously forward my logic chain because you continuously say that I don't have support.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You don't have a chain as I showed earlier. Please address that point specifically and do not keep going around in circles asserting truth from nothing. All you’re doing is repeating the same tired logic chain that you defeated yourself.
    My chain is not defeated and when you say that I don't have a chain, I am going to show that you are incorrect by showing you the chain. So here it is again.

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No, you said "the world that we exist in right now." A future world is not the same as the world "right now"!
    Still trying to play "gotcha" I see. Obviously I meant that the world is the same in the present and the future in same way that the world will be the same today and tomorrow (which is also the future). If you are trying to say that I did not accurately relay what I meant, then my explanation of what I meant makes it clear what I meant and therefore resolves any communication error and therefore the debate can move on. If you are trying to score some kind of points over a supposed mistake I made in wording, it does not forward the debate in any way and your only point is that I made an error in how I stated something. I would argue that you are incorrect that I made a mistake and what I said could reasonably be seem as "same world/different time". And even if I'm wrong, then all you have is "Gotcha! You made a mistake". That is not worth debating. So if you want to give yourself a "gotcha" point, go ahead. But I'm not playing that game so let's move on from this spammish issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don't think so! You don't keep generating stalling tactics with nonsensical logic when you haven't even tackled the basic question of your original 'logic' chain.

    I know you love that 'logic' chain so much but you have so much work to do before we can get to the meat of the discussion. I see that you have neither the facts or stamina to provide a case to support anything and you shoot yourself in the foot continuously by forgetting your own argument and defeating your own logic chain.
    Unsupported assertions. Ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You have a really long way to go before you can get your scenario (which you appear to have forgotten) into a state worth discussing and your logic chain is exposed as nonsense. We've been at this for several days and you have introduced zero new information, no new details with non forthcoming. You're relying a poor 'logic' to avoid having to supply such information, when it would be simpler just to provide the information in the first place. And then when your 'logic' is exposed as a bare assertion (i.e. not a chain at all but a tautological declaration that you're right) you start bringing in other nonsense.

    Let's face it - your scenario is a fantasy that that makes no difference to the fact that you have been wrong on every single point in this debate. You're relying on other nonsensical fantasies and examples of gun overkill with full knowledge of the risks (dead children). Much like the other easily defeated debater earlier who didn't know his facts, I suspect that you have no facts on your side either and you barely have an argument. Your position so shallow that it's barely qualifies as something worth debating and your dancing around the fact that you have nothing to present means that your opinions can be discarded.

    On top of that you keep forgetting the arguments despite repeating them ad-nauseum. And you're getting to the point where you're just going around in circles with yourself. Again.

    I suggest perhaps you take a breather and perhaps think of a new angle. This one fails every sniff test on detail, on plausibility, on logic and reason.
    Well, that's a bunch of complaining about my arguments and not addressing its content at all. When you have a rebuttal, something that actually shows that ANY of the three points of my logic chain is incorrect (and explains specifically why that point is incorrect) I will respond to it. Until then my logic chain stands as support for my position.

    BTW, you've twice ignored my argument that shows that you providing a single impossible scenario does not show that my FCW scenario is impossible. So I will consider that argument defeated until you do address that argument.
    Last edited by mican333; May 9th, 2018 at 08:50 AM.

  6. #106
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Gun Control and your stance

    My chain is not defeated and when you say that I don't have a chain, I am going to show that you are incorrect by showing you the chain. So here it is again.

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.
    Your chain has been defeated. Firstly by your own logic and then by actual logic. We will deal with how you defeated yourself first before moving onto why your reasoning is fallacious.

    Please read carefully, you have a terrible track record here in being able to keep track of things. So let’s start with your behavior and then we will move on.

    *** Forgetting where we are ***
    You keep referring to a future civil war scenario but we are currently examining your tyrant detail and seeing if that’s possible. After that we will look at your other claims and after all that and only then can we determine whether your general scenario is possible.

    I don’t know how you keep forgetting what we’re arguing about. It’s your argument and you lose track so quickly. It’s not a gotcha but a reminder to make sure you pay attention.

    Perhaps you need the repetitive nature of your original responses in order to maintain everything in your mind. If so then perhaps you can go back to repeating yourself and I’ll just ignore the last half of whatever you write.

    Let me know how you want to deal with your lack of attention and I will help.

    *** Bare Assertion ***
    So the first problem was when you said “you providing a single impossible scenario does not show that my FCW scenario is impossible. “.
    By extension then showing ANY impossible scenario cannot show your FCW scenario. No matter what scenarios I come up with, you still (apparently) have a scenario that is.

    Since you state that no impossible scenarios are possible your logic chain reduces to

    1. TRUISM - it must be considered possible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

    You’re literally asserting that your claim is true with no possibility of proving it false. That you've admitted to not doing so because it helps my side is dishonestly engaging and should be considered trolling

    Challenge to support a claim. provide enough details to properly understand your tyrant scenario or withdraw it.


    **** No Details ****
    Since I cannot falsify it then you need to provide more information as to what it is that you’re talking about so that it CAN be falsified.

    Your claims are too broad to begin with so they are not valid claims. You admit you don’t believe that all tyrants are possible so you need to narrow down what kinds of tyrants you’re thinking of. Otherwise your scenario is over broad and covers both possible and impossible scenarios.

    At the moment your scenario makes no sense since I have proven it false.

    ****** Shifting the Burden of Proof *****
    Fallacies are logical problems with arguments. Your logic chain has a huge one which I alluded to earlier: The shifting of the burden of proof

    [Quote]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burd...f_(philosophy)

    One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true

    [Quote]

    You are claiming that your scenario is possible until I can prove it impossible. That is a textbook shifting of the burden of proof and textbook argument from ignorance.

    So your logic chain is invalid.

    Challenge to support a claim. support your 'logic' chain is not fallacious or withdraw it.

    ****** Invalid Truism ******

    Your truism (1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.) now needs to examine. But first let’s define what that is:


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truism

    A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device, and is the opposite of falsism.
    As pointed out above, this is a clear argument from ignorance and is thus invalid.

    Challenge to support a claim. support or retract that is is self evident that “Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.”

    ******* Appeal to authority *******
    Earlier you also appealed that your “logic” chain was supported by ODN rules. I have to ignore it because it is a fallacious appeal to authority but now I need you to support it.

    Challenge to support a claim. support or retract that ODN supports the shifting of burdens.
    Last edited by SharmaK; May 9th, 2018 at 06:54 PM.

  7. #107
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,978
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Your chain has been defeated. Firstly by your own logic and then by actual logic. We will deal with how you defeated yourself first before moving onto why your reasoning is fallacious.
    If you can show that my logic chain was shown invalid by any logic, be it mine or something else, I will respond. But just claiming it is so falls short.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Please read carefully, you have a terrible track record here in being able to keep track of things.
    I have a terrible track record, huh? Well, let me unload on your about all of the horrible, awful, very no-good, and stupid...blah blah blah blah.

    Seriously, I made clear that such rude trollish comments will not be responded to so please refrain from making those comments.

    So no, I'm not going to "read carefully". I'm going to blow off all of the crap for being the crap that it is and focus on actual debate.

    Fortunately, you provided quite a bit of real debate after that....


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So the first problem was when you said “you providing a single impossible scenario does not show that my FCW scenario is impossible. “.
    By extension then showing ANY impossible scenario cannot show your FCW scenario. No matter what scenarios I come up with, you still (apparently) have a scenario that is.
    Actually, I don't have a possible scenario to forward. I am not supporting my argument by that method but by the logic chain. If you want to show that future tyranny is impossible by showing that every singe scenario is impossible, then you need to do more than show that one, or two, or ten, or even a hundred scenarios are impossible but show that every single potential scenario is impossible.

    So yes, If you forward a bunch of more impossible scenarios, you are not supporting that possible scenarios don't exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Since you state that no impossible scenarios are possible your logic chain reduces to

    1. TRUISM - it must be considered possible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

    You’re literally asserting that your claim is true with no possibility of proving it false.
    I did not literally assert that. Literally asserting means that I literally said the word "there's no possibility of proving it false" and I never said that.

    And that is not my logic chain nor has point 2 been removed.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Since I cannot falsify it then you need to provide more information as to what it is that you’re talking about so that it CAN be falsified.
    So because you can't defeat my argument as I presented it, I need to give you something that makes it possible for you to defeat my argument? Request denied.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Your claims are too broad to begin with so they are not valid claims
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT this claim. Until you support it, it will be ignored.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You admit you don’t believe that all tyrants are possible so you need to narrow down what kinds of tyrants you’re thinking of. Otherwise your scenario is over broad and covers both possible and impossible scenarios.
    It does cover both possible and impossible scenarios. So what? As long as there are possible scenarios, my FCW scenario is possible. The fact that there are also impossible scenarios doesn't change that.

    -------------------------------

    But let me ask you a question about this and I will SINCERELY say that if I like your answer well enough, I may give you some details.

    What EXACT additional details do you need before you will agree that my scenario is detailed enough for you to address? And I do mean EXACT. If there are three specific details that you need, tell me those three details and maybe I will provide them. I'm not saying that you are limited to three but I am saying that if you are sincere that you don't have enough details right now, then you must know what "having enough detail" is and therefore be able to tell me how much detail is enough (which means a finite number of details). So again, if you can tell me what you need to know to be able to adequately understand my scenario, then I will consider giving you such detail. No promises, though.

    -----------------------------------------------------


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You are claiming that your scenario is possible until I can prove it impossible. That is a textbook shifting of the burden of proof and textbook argument from ignorance.
    Wrong on both counts. Let's look at my logic chain.

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

    I assume you are referring to point 1 when you refer to shifting the burden. But point 1 does not shift the burden. It just accurately states where the burden lies when it comes to discussing whether something is possible or impossible and logically EVERYTHING is possible beyond what is shown to be impossible. Do you actually disagree with this?

    And I didn't use an argument from ignorance fallacy because I'm not arguing that anything is TRUE because no one has shown that it's NOT TRUE. Possible and true are not the same thing.

    But let me say sincerely that I do consider your arguments here to be genuine debating of the issue so I encourage this kind of stuff. Of course I'll do my best to knock down all of these arguments but I consider them good attempts.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Challenge to support a claim. support or retract that is is self evident that “Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.”
    Well, I called it a truism because it seems very self-evident. I mean it's OBVIOUSLY TRUE. But whether it counts as a valid logic point does not rely on whether it fit the definition of a "truism" or not but whether it is accepted as true by all parties in the debate (both you and I). If you honestly agree that the statement is true, then you must accept point 1 as valid.

    So unless you SINCERELY disagree that "Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible", point 1 stands, regardless of whether it fits the definition of a "truism" or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    ******* Appeal to authority *******
    Earlier you also appealed that your “logic” chain was supported by ODN rules. I have to ignore it because it is a fallacious appeal to authority but now I need you to support it.
    Actually, it's not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to the rules. I'm not saying that it counts as support because a certain person, who is an authority, says so.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Challenge to support a claim. support or retract that ODN supports the shifting of burdens.
    They don't support shifting the burden which isn't a problem for me because I didn't shift the burden.

  8. #108
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you can show that my logic chain was shown invalid by any logic, be it mine or something else, I will respond. But just claiming it is so falls short.
    I wasnít making an unsupported claim (unlike yourself). I was introducing my response.


    I have a terrible track record, huh? Well, let me unload on your about all of the horrible, awful, very no-good, and stupid...blah blah blah blah.

    Seriously, I made clear that such rude trollish comments will not be responded to so please refrain from making those comments.

    So no, I'm not going to "read carefully". I'm going to blow off all of the crap for being the crap that it is and focus on actual debate.

    Fortunately, you provided quite a bit of real debate after that....
    How is it rude to ask you to keep track of what weíre debating about? Time is precious and life is short. You need to pay proper attention to what weíre debating about.


    Actually, I don't have a possible scenario to forward. I am not supporting my argument by that method but by the logic chain. If you want to show that future tyranny is impossible by showing that every singe scenario is impossible, then you need to do more than show that one, or two, or ten, or even a hundred scenarios are impossible but show that every single potential scenario is impossible.

    So yes, If you forward a bunch of more impossible scenarios, you are not supporting that possible scenarios don't exist.
    Right. And that is why your attempts to avoid details is flawed. It is and always has been your burden to support your own claims. If youíre saying something is possible then you need to support that and not ask others to disprove it.

    You are forwarding that a tyrant is possible but that isnít saying anything. What do you even mean by tyrant?

    I did not literally assert that. Literally asserting means that I literally said the word "there's no possibility of proving it false" and I never said that.

    And that is not my logic chain nor has point 2 been removed.
    Just above you said that no impossible scenario will change your case. So any part of your argument referring to impossible scenarios are un-needed. Since theyíre not needed youíre just making a bare assertion.



    So because you can't defeat my argument as I presented it, I need to give you something that makes it possible for you to defeat my argument? Request denied.
    You havenít presented an argument. Youíre declaring that a tyrant is possible and saying that I need to disprove it. Not only have you no details about what this tyrant did, you havenít described how he gets power and support. You donít have any scenario and you donít have an argument.


    SUPPORT OR RETRACT this claim. Until you support it, it will be ignored.
    I have done everytime you ask. Please review the last four times and point our problems in my responses.


    It does cover both possible and impossible scenarios. So what? As long as there are possible scenarios, my FCW scenario is possible. The fact that there are also impossible scenarios doesn't change that.
    Right. Making your logic chain worthless and your declaration and bare claim. If youíre NOT saying that a tyrant is possible then you should drop your case. If you DONíT KNOW whether itís possible or not then you should also drop the case since you donít even know what youíre talking about.


    -------------------------------
    But let me ask you a question about this and I will SINCERELY say that if I like your answer well enough, I may give you some details.

    What EXACT additional details do you need before you will agree that my scenario is detailed enough for you to address? And I do mean EXACT. If there are three specific details that you need, tell me those three details and maybe I will provide them. I'm not saying that you are limited to three but I am saying that if you are sincere that you don't have enough details right now, then you must know what "having enough detail" is and therefore be able to tell me how much detail is enough (which means a finite number of details). So again, if you can tell me what you need to know to be able to adequately understand my scenario, then I will consider giving you such detail. No promises, though.
    Itís not my burden to prompt you about your own scenario! Itís your scenario to describe not mine to probe until you have something deep enough to discuss.

    I have asked multiple times what you mean by tyrant, what this tyrant did to cause such a fracture. Thatís just two simple things you should be able to provide in order to support that a tyrant is possible.

    I am looking for you to provide a scenario that is POSSIBLE since that is your claim. In order for it to be considered POSSIBLE your claims must not cover those situations that are impossible otherwise, how is anyone supposed to know whether you have a valid scenario or not?

    Youíre positively claiming that you have a valid scenario. I have shown your scenario as described (ie a tyrant from nowhere) is not a valid scenario because there are also impossible versions of tyrants being covered by your claim.

    The unqualified statement which is ďall tyrant scenariosĒ will cause a civil war is untrue. The burden is upon you to fill in the details to provide a set of facts that show whether you actually have a tyrant scenario or just bluffing.

    Iím betting on the latter can calling you out on it. You canít, again, I might add, shift the burden upon me to provide you how you can produce a good case. Itís your scenario and therefore your burden to produce a good case.

    You currently havenít and therefore after a week or so of going nowhere on one tiny detail of your general scenario, I think you should drop it. Itís clear to me youíre being evasive because you have previously been able to get away with a more credulous debater that takes your scenario at face value. I called out it the moment you wrote it and itís being proven that you really have nothing.

    Note that you are still very far from proving your scenario is even relevant.

    1. You have to show what you mean by tyrant.
    2. You have to show how such a tyrant can amass such power in a democratic election.
    3. You have to explain how the two sides of your scenario (tyrant/all government(whatever that means)/half an army(also implausible) ) vs (nearly all citizens/the other half of the army)

    Only then can you claim your scenario is POSSIBLE. Once youíve done that then:

    1. We need to examine the probability of it happening and weigh that against other scenarios.
    2. If itís a plausible scenario they we have to weigh the potential deaths vs actual deaths to determine whether the risk is worth it.

    So weíre a really long way from concluding anything. But it has to begin with you providing information about why your putting forward.


    -----------------------------------------------------



    Wrong on both counts. Let's look at my logic chain.

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

    I assume you are referring to point 1 when you refer to shifting the burden. But point 1 does not shift the burden. It just accurately states where the burden lies when it comes to discussing whether something is possible or impossible and logically EVERYTHING is possible beyond what is shown to be impossible. Do you actually disagree with this?
    Youíre the one forwarding your scenario so obviously youíre doing so because you think itís possible. Otherwise, why raise it? If you donít know whether itís possible or not then you donít have a case as at all because you donít know what youíre talking about. Itís a fantasy of a fantasy.

    Weíre not having a neutral discussion to determine whether a tyrant is possible or not. You have a stake in tyrants being possible so you are saying it is possible. Youíre not saying it could be possible but that it actually is. Right?

    So the burden is on you to show that your scenario is possible. Until then if youíre not making claims either way, we can dismiss it from the discussion and your civil war scenario collapses. I have no interest to help you support fantasies to help your 2A case - that burden is wholly on you.

    You cannot have a neutral position on this! You are either saying it is possible or it is impossible that there can be a tyrant or not. I hope thatís clear enough as to what your own argument is!

    And I didn't use an argument from ignorance fallacy because I'm not arguing that anything is TRUE because no one has shown that it's NOT TRUE. Possible and true are not the same thing.
    Wrong. You are saying it is TRUE that it is POSSIBLE. I donít know why I have to explain your own scenario to you. If it is POSSIBLE then you need to:

    1. Explain what it is that is possible.
    2. Explain how it is possible.

    You have done neither. After a week I still have no idea what this tyrant is about. So we canít even discuss possibility.

    The burden is wholly on you to show it is POSSIBLE not just declare it. It shouldnít be hard since it is what youíre using to support 2A. You must have put more thought into it than just throw out a single sentence.

    But let me say sincerely that I do consider your arguments here to be genuine debating of the issue so I encourage this kind of stuff. Of course I'll do my best to knock down all of these arguments but I consider them good attempts.
    Of course I am being genuine. This stuff takes time but currently you appear to evasive and deliberately avoiding to provide details. Itís fine if you donít have them. Just drop the scenario and we can move onto the next one.

    Well, I called it a truism because it seems very self-evident. I mean it's OBVIOUSLY TRUE. But whether it counts as a valid logic point does not rely on whether it fit the definition of a "truism" or not but whether it is accepted as true by all parties in the debate (both you and I). If you honestly agree that the statement is true, then you must accept point 1 as valid.

    So unless you SINCERELY disagree that "Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible", point 1 stands, regardless of whether it fits the definition of a "truism" or not.
    I do disagree with it in a general sense. And I did disagree with it in a general sense. Are you saying that ALL scenarios about any situation MUST be considered POSSIBLE without further examination? That anyone can claim anything and it should be considered seriously, as is, with no challenges?

    Thatís a ridiculous line of argumentation thatís a blank check for all kinds of fantasies. Itís a lazy argument that appears to support not providing information to debate. You might as well have stayed with saying a civil war in that case or just say there is a scenario that supports 2A without providing any further information.



    Actually, it's not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to the rules. I'm not saying that it counts as support because a certain person, who is an authority, says so.
    You have not supported that ODN rules counts your clear shifting of burden as support.

    They don't support shifting the burden which isn't a problem for me because I didn't shift the burden.
    Well, itís true you donít have a burden because you donít even have a scenario to discuss, which is why Iíve held off discussing your flawed logic chain to begin with. I suggest you lay out your claims first and then we can address why your logic chain is literally shifting the burden of proof.
    Last edited by SharmaK; May 10th, 2018 at 10:38 AM.

  9. #109
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,269
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    That you don’t understand the “guns kill people” argument whilst simultaneously arguing for people to kill people just means that you have no rational argument at all.
    I understand the argument, and that it is bogus.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And of course the constitution can be changed: it’s in the constitution! So on top of not being able to form a cohesive argument, you’re literally complaining about people wanting to exercise their constitutional rights!
    This is funny, coming from someone who complains about people exercising a right to have firearms.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    ...you’re the one...fantasizing...
    Again, this is laughable coming from the person who actually believes guns will be outlawed and confiscated. You may have 20% of the population who would agree with your agenda, but most people would resist such an effort. So no matter how much you rant and foam at the mouth, it isn't going to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You’re contradicting yourself at every turn so I have to say: Three strikes! You’re out!
    No, you're not an umpire here, Sharm. Keep fantasizing though, if it makes you happy.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  10. #110
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I understand the argument, and that it is bogus.
    Um. Yes, I agree your contradictory position is bogus.

    This is funny, coming from someone who complains about people exercising a right to have firearms.
    Iím not complaining about it I am working to remove their ability to do so. Youíre the one complaining I shouldnít campaign to have the constitution changed.

    Again, this is laughable coming from the person who actually believes guns will be outlawed and confiscated. You may have 20% of the population who would agree with your agenda, but most people would resist such an effort. So no matter how much you rant and foam at the mouth, it isn't going to happen.
    There are plenty of ways to achieve this goal and multiple angles to restrict and control access to guns. That can be done slowly. Donít worry about it.

    No, you're not an umpire here, Sharm. Keep fantasizing though, if it makes you happy.
    Sure if you have more than bluster and bragging we can continue but it doesnít appear you have much of a case at all. Just saying itís difficult to achieve doesnít mean it shouldnít be done.

  11. #111
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,269
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure if you have more than bluster and bragging we can continue but it doesn’t appear you have much of a case at all. Just saying it’s difficult to achieve doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
    And just saying you're trying and it should be done, isn't a compelling argument. If you want more than the 20% to support your cause, you need to be more persuasive than you've been here, because in the real world the burden is on your side to convince people you have the most moral position. So far, it ain't happening.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  12. #112
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    And just saying you're trying and it should be done, isn't a compelling argument. If you want more than the 20% to support your cause, you need to be more persuasive than you've been here, because in the real world the burden is on your side to convince people you have the most moral position. So far, it ain't happening.
    Well, I have reasons for removing 2A but thus far in our debate I have been debunking your reasons for keeping it.

    The response that you are claiming to be reasons to keep 2A is just a reply back to your claim that you think itís going to be hard. I understand it will be hard but I donít think thatís a reason not to pursue it. The younger generations are seeing less and less of a reason for guns and more and more problems with the risks that guns bring.

    Please keep track of what the debate is about: weíre not talking about implementation but *what we should be doing*. I know youíre dying to say ďtry and take muh gunsĒ so just go ahead an get your Ďmachoí whining out of the way and move on to what we should do as a nation moving forward.
    Last edited by SharmaK; May 12th, 2018 at 05:43 AM.

  13. #113
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,978
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    How is it rude to ask you to keep track of what we’re debating about? Time is precious and life is short. You need to pay proper attention to what we’re debating about.
    Since you seem to be having difficulty in comprehending when you are being rude, I'm going to explain it to you. Now, I've explained this before so I need you to really pay attention this time and it didn't seem to sink in the last time I explained it. A request itself is not rude and I never said it was. But if one's request puts down the person or his debating ("You have a terrible track record") or condescending then it is rude and I'm not going to respond.

    And for the record, I intentionally framed my first sentence in the manner that your rude comment addressed me. To be clear, it’s rude because it says/implies negative things about you. It refers to YOUR difficulty in comprehension, just like your statement accuses me of having a problem with remembering my own arguments and as it likewise indicates that I have something to teach you, that indicates that one some level I’m smarter than you and conversely, you are dumber than me. Same thing with you trying to “educate” me.

    Debaters should ALWAYS approach each other as equals and the attacks should be reserved for the arguments, not the other person.

    And you should consider the possibility that your criticisms are unfair. That's not to say that they are insincere but your assessment of the debate and what's going on is subjective and since you aren't perfect, subject to your own flawed views and misunderstandings (that's not meant to be a put-down - we ALL have flawed view and misunderstandings), you should seriously consider that your criticisms are sometimes, perhaps even often, inaccurate and therefore you don't have license to share them because they are "basically true" - no, it's just what you think and I think something else.

    And more to the point - it’s not worth arguing about. If I were to directly point out how I think your criticisms are wrong (which I can), then we are arguing about each other instead of debating the actual issues. Such arguments are not only spam (does not forward the debate), it sets a bad example for others here (debaters should not be attacking each other) and has the potential for one or both of us getting so upset that we just stop the debate.

    So for those reasons, I choose, quite correctly, to not even address such rude criticisms except to point out that they are not worth responding to. And that will be my consistent policy. So if you got something to say to me, say it politely. Otherwise you are “talking to the hand.

    ——————————

    And now back to the ACTUAL debate.

    I’m going to organize things a bit and likewise try to eliminate stuff that’s redundant or not immediately relevant.

    To recap. The ONLY topic under discussion right now is whether the “Future Civil War” scenario is possible. I have forwarded a logic chain which I say supports that it must be considered possible and you’ve raised various challenges to it. First, for reference, here it is.

    1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
    2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
    3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

    And if it works as I claim it does, points 1 and 2 are true and point 3 logically follows points 1 and 2 and therefore is likewise true.

    And of course this logic chain can be attacked and if it’s shown that either points 1 or 2 are not necessarily true or point 3 does not necessarily follow, then the logic chain fails and it’s not supported that the FCW scenario is true.

    So I’m going to organize and summarize your arguments as I see them. And I’ll start with rebuttals to point 1 (which were at the end of your last post and will be moved to the top.

    POINT 1 - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I do disagree with it in a general sense. And I did disagree with it in a general sense. Are you saying that ALL scenarios about any situation MUST be considered POSSIBLE without further examination? That anyone can claim anything and it should be considered seriously, as is, with no challenges?
    No. There is a HUGE difference between “taken seriously” and “possible”.

    And I will demonstrate the difference with a hypothetical.

    A person tells you that he will flip a coin and it will land “heads” a million times in a row. Obviously you would not take his claim seriously nor should you. But regardless, it is possible that he will do that. Unless odds of any of his coin flips is 100% likely to land tails, every coin flip could land heads and therefore it’s possible that every doing flip will land heads, even a million in a row. Extremely unlikely to say the least, but possible.

    So short of something that is provably impossible (like saying that his coin will turn into a pigeon and fly away) all proposed scenarios must be considered possible.

    So that is support for point 1.


    ARGUMENT: You’ve provided insufficient details to determine if you scenario is possible.

    Again, Point 1. Unless one can show that it’s impossible, it’s possible so I don’t need to provide more details to support that it’s possible. If you can't support that it's impossible because you don't have what you need to do it, then you've not proven it impossible.

    Secondly, you have not supported that I’ve provided insufficient details because you have never established what qualifies as sufficient. You can’t support that I’ve fallen short of the mark, if you don’t establish where the mark lies. I’ve provided four details. So if that’s not enough, there must be a number of details greater than 4 that is required (or certain specific details that are required). So what is that number? Or what detail(s) do you need before we can tell? If you don’t establish what details I am missing, the case that I’ve not given enough details fails.

    Question to opponent. Which details do I need to provide before you will agree that I have given enough details in order for us to determine if the scenario is possible or not?

    Until you spell out what is needed to provide enough details, the argument that I’ve not provided enough utterly fails.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Just above you said that no impossible scenario will change your case. So any part of your argument referring to impossible scenarios are un-needed. Since they’re not needed you’re just making a bare assertion.
    Impossible scenarios, regardless of the number, don’t help your argument because their existence does not show that possible scenarios don’t exist. If you provide a million impossible scenarios but one possible scenario also exists, then the FCW scenario is possible. If you want to argue that no possible scenarios for FCW exist, fine. But just providing different scenarios that are impossible doesn’t do that.

    Again, the fact that I can provide an impossible scenario for the Red Sox winning the world series in 2020, or even a million impossible scenarios, does not support that it's impossible that they will win the series. Likewise your impossible scenarios, regardless of the number of them, don't show that the FCW scenario is possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    The burden is upon you to fill in the details to provide a set of facts that show whether you actually have a tyrant scenario or just bluffing.
    I have a tyrant scenario. The FCW scenario, which features a tyrant and is a scenario, BY DEFINITION is a tyrant scenario. If you don’t know what “tyrant” or “scenario” mean, consult a dictionary.

    Your complaint is not that I have no scenario but that I’ve not provided enough details for the scenario to be “valid” or whatever. Again, you need to support that assertion.

    In fact, I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my FCW scenario lacks sufficient details to be considered possible. And some variation of "I already answered this before" does not count as support. Either provide support for this claim or cease repeating it.
    Last edited by mican333; May 12th, 2018 at 09:58 AM.

  14. #114
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Do you believe that it is possible to have a tyrant in the US of not?

  15. #115
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,978
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Do you believe that it is possible to have a tyrant in the US of not?
    Yes I do. I supported that it's possible via the logic chain and I accept my own argument.

  16. #116
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yes I do. I supported that it's possible via the logic chain and I accept my own argument.
    Then you need to support the truism is true.

  17. #117
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,978
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Then you need to support the truism is true.
    I will. And I will do so with a logic chain. But I'm going to introduce the first point of the logic chain to support the truism by itself and others will follow in a following post once this one is settled. So:

    1. If one does not know if X will happen or not, it must be considered possible that X will happen.

    As an example for support, you are reasonably sure if you drive somewhere tonight, you won't get into a car accident. But you don't KNOW that you won't get into a car accident and therefore concede that it's possible that you will have an accident. I consider this scenario support for point 1 of this logic chain.

    So is point 1 accepted? If not, you need to state a reason for rejecting it.
    Last edited by mican333; May 12th, 2018 at 11:26 AM.

  18. #118
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Gun Control and your stance

    Nope. There are plenty of things that I would not consider possible.

    But the main problem is that I cannot tell because we have not agreed upon our universe of discourse. You need to provide more details as to what your scenario is about. For example, I donít think it is possible that I will bump into a Tyrant that is tyrannical about fashion.
    Last edited by SharmaK; May 12th, 2018 at 06:35 PM.

  19. #119
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,978
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Nope. There are plenty of things that I would not consider possible.
    Which means you know that they will not happen. But I'm referring to things that you don't know if they will happen or not.

    But the main problem is that I cannot tell because we have not agreed upon our universe of discourse. You need to provide more details as to what your scenario is about. For example, I don’t think it is possible that I will bump into a Tyrant that is tyrannical about fashion.[/QUOTE]

    Let's keep the focus where it belongs. You asked me to support the truism and I'm doing that with a logic chain that supports it. And here's the first point of my logic chain that supports the truism.

    1. If one does not know if X will happen or not, it must be considered possible that X will happen.

    As an example for support, you are reasonably sure if you drive somewhere tonight, you won't get into a car accident. But you don't KNOW that you won't get into a car accident and therefore concede that it's possible that you will have an accident. I consider this scenario support for point 1 of this logic chain.

    So is point 1 accepted? If not, you need to state a reason for rejecting it.
    Last edited by mican333; May 12th, 2018 at 07:43 PM.

  20. #120
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Which means you know that they will not happen. But I'm referring to things that you don't know if they will happen or not.
    I could still be in a simulation and it could still happen. So even if I donít expect it to happen then it could still happen. But my point was to show that there are plenty of scenarios that cannot happen even though they still might. And that is a problem with your scenarios being too broad and unclear and that weíre not sharing the same universe of discourse.

    Let's keep the focus where it belongs. You asked me to support the truism and I'm doing that with a logic chain that supports it. And here's the first point of my logic chain that supports the truism.

    1. If one does not know if X will happen or not, it must be considered possible that X will happen.

    As an example for support, you are reasonably sure if you drive somewhere tonight, you won't get into a car accident. But you don't KNOW that you won't get into a car accident and therefore concede that it's possible that you will have an accident. I consider this scenario support for point 1 of this logic chain.

    So is point 1 accepted? If not, you need to state a reason for rejecting it.
    Well, this logic chain seems to have the same flaws as the old one. Perhaps you want to try another logic chain with a slightly different spin on the same thing?

    Or should we address the real issue at hand that you have never described any scenario in enough detail to determine what youíre talking about is possible or not.

    I understand if you donít have the detail but then that just stalls your logic chain. Unless you provide details about X, it is impossible to determine anything about it.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

 
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. There is no tenable stance against gay marriage
    By Zhavric in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 207
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2011, 09:57 AM
  2. Your stance on overpopulation
    By Xanadu Moo in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: August 13th, 2007, 08:11 AM
  3. Something from nothing: the THEIST stance.
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: May 16th, 2007, 07:27 AM
  4. Abortion Stance
    By Meng Bomin in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: October 21st, 2004, 09:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •