Logic doesnt exist | DebateCraft

Burden of proof is on Con to prove that logic exists, and he must prove that logic exists without using any logic.

Round 1

1 of 1

SatanLucy

Pro #1

"Burden of proof is on Con to prove that logic exists, and he must prove that logic exists without using any logic." - From description

the problem for my opponent is a very simple one. He must not use any logic. However, each claim is made out of logic. "Logic exists" is a logical claim which says "Logic = exists" and this claim depends on logic to be true, in order for claim to be true.

In other words, my opponent must not make any claims, because each claim he makes is either using logic, some logical connective such as "is, are, or, =", or not having any sense which then makes him unable to prove logic.

So each claim he makes is either using logic, or is illogical.

If he attempts to make any claim, he loses debate by default.

to make matters a bit worse, each proof for logic would come in form of a claim, and each claim depends on logic to be true, which then creates circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.

Each claim requires reason in order to be true, and each reason is also a claim which requires a reason to be true. this forces only 3 possible results: infinite reasoning (impossible), circular reasoning (fallacy), or unproved (opponent fails to meet burden of proof).

My opponent might counter and say denying logic is nonsense and self contradiction, but such counter only works if logic is true, and such counter depends on logic in order to be true, thus it cannot be used to prove logic at the same time without creating another circular reasoning. Contradiction argument only works if logic is already true, which still needs proving.

"Counter(contradiction) true because of logic, logic true because of counter(contradiction)".

Circular reasoning

I could say logic is false because logic is false. So if we accept circular reasoning as valid, it doesnt prove logic any more than it disproves it.

Once again, my opponent is not allowed to use logic to prove logic. thus, any claim he makes must be not logical by default, and not logical claims cannot be used to prove anything, thus logic is unproved.

truly, all reasoning is circular, infinite or unproved, and all 3 of these reasonings are flawed and can be used to likewise disprove said reasoning.

Further, my opponent suffers from problem of definitions. But all definitions contain words, and those words need further definitions, which contain words which need definitions, which again contain words, which need definitions.

thus, all definitions are circular, infinite or undefined in a definition tree.

Observations dont prove definitions or logic, because observations depend on definitions or logic. You cannot observe anything to make induction without relying on law of identity. You cannot make any definition with observation without likewise relying on law of identity.

thus, a crucial problem: Logic to be true depends on definitions, and definitions to be true depend on logic. this creates circular dependence and circular reasoning. Same with observations. Observations depend on logic and definitions, and logic and definitions depend on observations. thus, observations cannot be used to prove logic or definitions.

Science is observations. However, the problem with science is that it uses observations to prove observations, in other words, it uses circular logic.

You cannot prove observations with non-observations, and proving observations using observations is circular logic.

So my opponent now has to explain how are observations proved without observations. So my opponent now must either explain observations using observations, or observations using non-observations.

Can non-observations prove observations?

No. Non-observations by definition dont observe anything, and if they dont observe anything, they are not observation of anything, thus no observation is proved by them.

It is not proved that person observes anything. Person cannot prove that person observes anything.

this is not to be confused with existence of logic and definitions, which is a separate issue. Logic and definitions are always one of 3: circular, infinite or unproved.

If you think about it, all claims are made out of words, and all words out of definitions which are further made out of words.

Because of this, all definitions are circular, infinite or unproved. there is no 4th option when each word has to be defined. When each word has to be defined using other word, it is not possible to have a complete system, it is not possible to complete the definitions because in the system there is always some word which is undefined or defined with circular definition.

Because of this, all definitions are flawed, in other words, undefined, and thus all words are equally undefined and flawed. this means that science which depends on use of definitions fails because definitions fail.

then consider the logic and reasoning. In logic and reasoning, each claim requires a reason in order to be true. But each reason is also a claim which needs a reason for it to be true. this results in circular reasoning or unproved reasoning, because for each reason, a new claim is made which needs another reason.

From this, we see that person doesnt actually have any way of proving observations true, and due to this, person can never prove science of observations.

If two things cannot be proved true, then two things are equally true.

So observations, even if consistent, cannot be proved true and not a simulation.

Many people will say "theists are using Bible to prove Bible".

But many people use things outside Bible to prove things outside Bible, which is same circular logic because you eventually run out of reasons for every reason.

You cannot have reason for every reason, and reason why every reason is a reason.

pierree

Con #2

understandg I log no yes ther ys science obserg circle no fal.

pierree

#56

therwfore logic exists

SatanLucy

#55

"if logic wouldn't exist then I except you to understand me no matter what, guess what, you can't understand what I said. therefore the just assumption that logic doesn't exist is truly false, because logic understays under anything."

Well, that makes a lot of sense.

pierree

#54

logic:Logic is traditionally defined as the study of the laws of thought or correct reasoning, and is usually understood in terms of inferences or arguments. Reasoning is the activity of drawing inferences.

proof by contradiction:
golic edost xiests

if logic wouldn't exist then I except you to understand me no matter what, guess what, you can't understand what I said. therefore the just assumption that logic doesn't exist is truly false, because logic understays under anything.
a baby that doesn't even talk can tell that a cat is different from a dog.
but we can't understand babies because they use a system of theirs that can't be understood if we don't observe the usual behavior of that baby.

logic is just the essence of what is comprehensive and what isn't. it is about the observation of events.
even if we don't understand the baby talking we can understand what he wants, we can understand that he understands that something is something and not another thing. from this we can understand that language is relative and observation not.

SatanLucy

#53

"logic isn't only law of identity. "

Maybe you can say what else logic is?

"logic in Greek means word"

We are not using dictionary from ancient Greece here, tho Aristotle did establish rules of logic which dont mean anything close to "logic = words", tho proving that words exist without using words is I assume difficult too.

pierree

#52

logic isn't only law of identity.
even cavemen could understand that if a rock is a rock then a tree isn't a rock. and logic in Greek means word

SatanLucy

#51

No, words arent logic.

Logic is law of identity, which is "A=A" and "A=\= Not A", and neither of these can be proved without relying on themselves, so it is circular logic.

pierree

#50

logic comes from the word λόγος, word.
we're using words to communicate therefore it exists

SatanLucy

#49

"the fact you can understand me proves logic"

It only works if you already assume logic is true, so you are using logic to prove logic.

pierree

#48

the fact you can understand me proves logic

SatanLucy

#47

"you can't prove logic doesn't exist using logic"

You can, assuming logic is true, logic is self-contradictive, so it cannot be true at the same time. this isnt difficult to understand. All logic can only be proved by logic or not logic. First is circular, second is impossible. So again, if you say that circular logic is valid, that disproves all logic because circular logic can be used to disprove any logic, and if you say it isnt valid, then logic is disproved again because it depends on circular logic to prove itself. What we have seen here is that logic cannot be proved in any way, in other words, the very tools you use to reason cannot be proved true in any possible way without trying to prove themselves, which is impossible. I dont see what is so confusing here. trying to use logic to prove logic is always circular. Even saying that I used logic, so I proved logic, is still using logic to prove logic. So all what we have here are circular arguments, and if circular reasoning is valid, then no reasoning is valid because circular reasoning can be used as both pro and for anything.

SomeDebatePerson

#46

--> @pierree

Exactly, people could tell it made no sense. Logic exists.

pierree

#45

--> @SatanLucy, @SomeDebatePerson

lucy you did the work for me because you proved logic. sdp I proved the burden of proof without using logic, therefore what's happening between you two is useless

pierree

#44

--> @SatanLucy

logic exists because we understand each other, if I wanna think and write following a bunch of random words generated by myself, you wouldn't understand anything. you can't prove logic doesn't exist using logic

SatanLucy

#43

"giving him no chance to use your statements to prove logic does indeed exist."

You cannot use my statements to prove logic exists without doing circular logic.

"It can’t be circular logic if there is no logic."

If there is no logic, then you cant prove logic.

Logic can only be proved by:
1. Logic
2. Not logic

there is no 3rd option.

Which one of these two are you using to prove logic?

SomeDebatePerson

#42

“No, that was you assuming ‘if you mention logic, logic exists.’ Also, burden of proof is on Con, so I cannot do work for him.”

Not necessarily. If burden of proof is on him, why go into so much details? You could have won if you did nothing, giving him no chance to use your statements to prove logic does indeed exist.

“If circular logic is good, then saying logic doesnt exist because logic doesnt exist is as good as saying logic exists because logic exists, a contradiction.”

How can contradictions even be a thing if there is no logic? Contradictions defy logic, but they can’t defy logic if it doesn’t exist.

“Using ‘real logic’ to prove ‘real logic’ is circular too.”

It can’t be circular logic if there is no logic.

SatanLucy

#41

--> @SomeDebatePerson

"I’m saying that you did the work for con."

No, that was you assuming "if you mention logic, logic exists". Also, burden of proof is on Con, so I cannot do work for him.

"Also, saying all logic is flawed means all logic is good."

If circular logic is good, then saying logic doesnt exist because logic doesnt exist is as good as saying logic exists because logic exists, a contradiction.

"Circular logic is flawed because there is real logic. If real logic didn’t exist, circular logic couldn’t be flawed."

Using "real logic" to prove "real logic" is circular too.

SomeDebatePerson

#40

--> @SatanLucy

I’m saying that you did the work for con.

Also, saying all logic is flawed means all logic is good.

Circular logic is flawed because there is real logic. If real logic didn’t exist, circular logic couldn’t be flawed.

SatanLucy

#39

--> @SomeDebatePerson

"You are using circular logic to prove logic doesn't exist."

You are confused. Burden of proof isnt on me to prove logic doesnt exist. It is on my opponent to prove it does exist, without using logic.

I exposed that logic can only be argued for using circular logic, and if you say circular logic is valid form of logic, it results in self-contradiction which would be impossible if logic exists.

So if logic exists, all logic is circular, and thus all logic is flawed logic.

SomeDebatePerson

#38

--> @SatanLucy

"You are using circular logic to prove logic, while at the same time saying circular logic is flawed."

You are using circular logic to prove logic doesn't exist.

The fact is, you know and recognize circular logic is bad logic. How can it be bad logic?

SatanLucy

#37

--> @SomeDebatePerson

"Circular reasoning is a flawed form of logic. Therefore, it makes sense to say there are good forms of logic and logic does indeed exist."

You are using circular logic to prove logic, while at the same time saying circular logic is flawed.

"If a contradiction is possible, it is no longer a contradiction."

Again, if contradictions are impossible, logic cannot be possible.

You cannot prove a claim "something cannot both be and not be" without using that very claim as principle.

SomeDebatePerson

#36

--> @SatanLucy

"this is only true if you already assume logic exists, which is circular reasoning."

Circular reasoning is a flawed form of logic. Therefore, it makes sense to say there are good forms of logic and logic does indeed exist.

"So again, if we assume that contradictions are impossible, it defeats logic itself."

Contradiction means something can be something that's not. Example: false = true, impossible = possible, illogical = logical.

If a contradiction is possible, it is no longer a contradiction.

Also, how can it defeat logic if logic doesn't exist?

SatanLucy

#35

--> @SomeDebatePerson

"But you did need to do something"

this is only true if you already assume logic exists, which is circular reasoning.

"Your whole argument is that the world would make more logic sense if logic didn't exist, which is a contradiction."

It is only a contradiction if you already assume logic exists, so you are using circular logic.

"You claim that removing logic creates better logic, which contradicts itself."

You claim that logic proves logic, which contradicts itself.

So again, if we assume that contradictions are impossible, it defeats logic itself.

SomeDebatePerson

#34

--> @SatanLucy

"If logic doesnt exist, I dont need to do anything because logic doesnt exist."

But you did need to do something, therefore logic exists.

Your whole argument is that the world would make more logic sense if logic didn't exist, which is a contradiction.

You claim that removing logic creates better logic, which contradicts itself.

SatanLucy

#33

Also, you can hypothesize about things which dont exist.

SatanLucy

#32

--> @SomeDebatePerson

"If logic didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to hypothesize what the world would be like if logic did exist."

If logic doesnt exist, I dont need to do anything because logic doesnt exist.

And if we assume logic exists, it ends up in self-defeat where you are using logic to prove logic.

SomeDebatePerson

#31

--> @SatanLucy

If logic didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to hypothesize what the world would be like if logic did exist.

SomeDebatePerson

#30

--> @SatanLucy

That's a big if

SatanLucy

#29

--> @SomeDebatePerson

"If logic doesn't exist, there can be no if-then statements."

If logic doesnt exist, then I already won a debate and dont need if then statements.

And if we assume logic exists, it ends up in self-defeat, so logic cannot exist.

SomeDebatePerson

#28

--> @SatanLucy

If logic doesn't exist, there can be no if-then statements.

If logic didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to give hypothetical if-then statements about what life would be like if logic did exist.

The reason why none of these if-then statements make sense is because the if says "logic didn't exist." It proves logic does exist because it contradicts itself.

SatanLucy

#27

--> @SomeDebatePerson

Again,

If logic exists, then logic results in self-contradiction and self-defeat.

If logic doesnt exist, then logic doesnt exist and you cant claim it does.

Savant Administrator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Con doesn't use logic, but he doesn't prove logic exists either. This was a trap debate, and the only way for Con to win was to challenge the rules.

SomeDebatePerson

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Pro tried to prove logic doesn't exist by using logic.

Pro used logic, proving logic does exist.

Pro proved the burden of proof for con, so con wins the debate.

whiteflame Global Moderator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

How does one prove logic exists without using logic? I think Pro meant this debate to be impossible for Con to prove, but this ends up backfiring. I couldn't make heads or tails of Con's argument, so it definitely does not include logic. But the fact that I couldn't do so means I have one of two take-aways: either Con's illogic comes as a result of the absence of logic or the absence of logic strongly suggests the existence of logic. Pro's argument, being logical, precludes the former (ironically, Pro's long argument in support of the resolution does more to undermine his position than Con's does). So Con's statement implies the latter. Ergo, I vote Con.

FLRW

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Logic is a fundamental subject that shapes the way we think, reason, and argue. It goes far beyond being a mere tool for solving problems or making decisions—it’s the very foundation of clear thinking. Whether you’re debating with friends or analyzing complex philosophical questions, logic is always at work. At its core, logic is about distinguishing between valid and invalid arguments. But this seemingly simple definition encompasses a broad range of interpretations, as various thinkers have sought to describe the essence of logic in their own terms. The subject has evolved over centuries, from the ancient Greek philosophers to contemporary scholars, with each offering unique perspectives on what logic truly is. Con does not use logic in his round so you cannot understand his statement. This proves that logic exists. My vote goes to Con.

GreatfulGoy

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

A silitely disgusting semantic trap just like many other debates Pro has made.

Pro wins because Con literally forfeits andnhad a forced forfeit anyway as he was banned to use any logic.

Round 1

New comment