CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:21
Arguments:13
Total Votes:21
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Refute this: (13)

Debate Creator

lawnman(1106) pic



Refute this:

Nothing is better than wisdom.

Bread crumbs are better than nothing.

Therefore, bread crumbs are better than wisdom.

(The answer to this challenge is not found at CNN, CNBC, FOX, MSNBC, NPR, CNN etc.)

Hint: This is a thinking challenge.

Add New Argument
6 points

The argument is invalid because each of the two sentences uses a different sense (meaning) of an ambiguity ("nothing").

In the first sentence, "nothing" is used to describe "not one thing" (generally).

But in the second sentence, "nothing" is used to describe "no food" or "no breadcrumbs".

If we were to use just the one sense of the word for both sentences, then one of the two premises would always collapse.

Another example:

Cancer causes death.

Michael is a Cancer.

Therefore, Michael causes death.

1 point

Unsurprisingly, your analysis of the argument is a correct analysis. But you knew that.

Another example:

Cancer causes death.

Michael is a Cancer.

Therefore, Michael causes death.

However, the argument you submitted as another example is invalid for different reasons. Do you agree they are invalid for different reasons? (No explanation is required, feel free to do as you will.)

1 point

Yes I understand the different reasons, I just used the example to illustrate with the word "cancer" what I meant about the different meanings of "nothing".

Nothing is better than wisdom means:

Nothing !> Wisdom

or that wisdom best. Therefore:

Wisdom > nothing

Breadcrumbs is better than nothing means:

Breadcrumbs > nothing

therefore:

Wisdom > Breadcrumbs > nothing.

There's no contradiction.

2 points

Within the statement, the usage of nothing changes to it's subjectve relation.

Mathematically we can write this:

•Nothing = x

•Wisdom = a

•Bread crums = Q

So, Q>x>a.

-

HOWEVER...

Nothing is conditional, in that it's function changes according to it's usage.

So, Nothing = F(x) = x [;j; y]u where ;j; is a mathematical function (further information below as 1) and y is any series of values and [] simply notates a section of repetition, which is determined by u.

-

IN OTHER WORDS... 'Nothing' is dependant on it's augmentation, as it is functionally transmutant.

1) +, -, x, /, and so on.

So I invented my own mathematical terminology. I felt it was neccesary.

-----

Alternate Solution:

• "nothing" changes between 'no thing' and 'the lack of thing' in it's context so the comparison is void.

1 point

This is for all of you who find yourselves nauseated by the abundance of childish, illogical disputes that are idiot-centric; meaning to a large degree that idiots of all calibers can think they are debating when they post a reply. Furthermore, many subjects of debate, so called, are idiot-friendly unto that end.

(I enjoyed this site when arguments elicited an intelligent compulsion to submit a worthy rebuttal argument. I guess it is fair to assert that I am not the least bit interested in refuting an elementary level argument on an infantile debate subject.)

BLAH, BLAH, Blah!

1 point

nauseated by the abundance of childish, illogical disputes

And this debate is introduced to somehow counter the trend? lol It's not going to work. We will have to start a "best of lawnman" thread to model ourselves after :)

1 point

A facetious reply no doubt!

And this debate is introduced to somehow counter the trend?

Hardly, yet it is certainly not the promotion of that trend.

1 point

it is certainly not the promotion of that trend.

In the spirit of facetiousness, I suppose, neither of the last two debates you created promote what nauseates you. Trying to fight fire with fire are we?

1 point

Joe said what I was going to say. There is no contradiction.

[edited]

Side: there is no contradiction
Argento(512) Disputed
1 point

There is.

Me and Joe have not said the same thing.

Check our posts again and you'll see the difference.

Side: there is no contradiction
1 point

I guess I agreed with Joe and partly with you. Sorry about that.

Side: there is no contradiction