Wet Grass Is Evidence Of Rain

I must respond to Pro with a linguistics argument as they have committed an equivocation fallacy with respects to the word "rain," even though we agreed on the definitions beforehand. Pro is using the word "rain" to mean the "substance of rainwater" (existence) instead of the event of "atmospheric moisture falling visibly" (occurrence). The agreed definition in this debate is the EVENT of rain, not the SUBSTANCE of rainwater. Attempting to prove the stative existence of a dynamic event, like rain, is flawed, nonsensical, and counter to the agreed definition of rain and its usage in the resolution. Boo Pro. I'll be quick with the English lesson... Stative verbs, like EXIST, exemplify a state of being not subject to duration. Dynamic verbs, like OCCUR, exemplify a continued or progressive action on the part of the subject. You can't use stative verbs, like exist, to exemplify dynamic events, like rain, because dynamic events have duration and thus are unexpressed by stative duration-less verbs. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... Rain is a dynamic occurrence not subject to stative existence. Would you cancel a party if rain exists? No, you'd cancel a party if rain occurs. Demonstrating rain, the dynamic occurrence, would require showing that "atmospheric moisture falling visibly" OCCURS. Demonstrating rainwater, the stative substance, would require showing that "water" EXISTS. rainwater - water that has fallen as or been obtained from rain...this is NOT an EVENT it's a SUBSTANCE. https://www.google.com... Unfortunately for Pro, this debate is about the EVENT of rain not the SUBSTANCE, rainwater, so we should be debating OCCURRENCE rather than EXISTENCE. Ok...so "moisture falling visibly," is an event/occurrence not a substance/existence. Pro is able to employ the equivocation fallacy, because "rain" is also colloquially used to refer to "rainwater," which is not an event, rather it is a substance called water. But anyone who read the definitions that were agreed on before the debate can see that rain is an event of "atmospheric moisture falling visibly" which is dynamic and therefore not subject to exemplification by a stative verb like exist. One can also see that the word "evidence" is agreed to show something PARTICULAR to be likely true. Since we are talking about an occurrence--instead of an existence--and its relationship to wet grass, wet grass needs to show a PARTICULAR occurrence of rain to be likely true, not just that rain has occurred once in time. Remember, rain is dynamic. Pro says "What I have to demonstrate in this debate, is to prove that wet grass is evidence for the EXISTENCE of rain." Flawed. Pro, you must prove that wet grass is evidence for the OCCURRENCE of rain relative to the wet grass. Knowing the difference between stative and dynamic concepts illustrates this massive misstep by Pro. So as such, Pro continues to demonstrate that water exists..."Therefore, wetness on grass is evidence that rain exists." I hope readers understand what's going on here. By saying that rain exists, Pro is by definition talking about water existing, not the meteorological occurrence of rain; rain is dynamic and therefore not subject to stative existence. So Pro smuggles in his own definition of rain to make his burden of proof to prove water...which is pretty easy. Pro is either being highly dishonest, or incredibly naive to the difference between stative and dynamic concepts. Pro is wrong when he says "Wet grass clearly consists of a) Grass and b) Wetness. I would successfully fulfill my BoP (Burden of Proof) if I am able to prove that even one of those two components is evidence of rain." Flawed. This is called a fallacy of composition where the violator of the fallacy, Pro in this case, infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. https://en.wikipedia.org... So just demonstrating grass to be evidence of rain is not demonstrating that wet grass is evidence of rain. Moreover, just demonstrating wetness to be evidence of rain is not demonstrating that wet grass is evidence of rain. Sorry Pro, you're going to have to actually demonstrate a particular occurrence of rain being evidenced by wet grass, not just that grass exists, because water exists. So far, Pro has demonstrated that grass, not wet grass (composition fallacy), exists, because water exists. Pro also believes that dry grass is evidence of rain, because, again, Pro is using the word "rain" in place of the word "water," so that he can state that grass itself, dry or otherwise, is evidence of the existence of water since grass needs water, not an occurrence of rain. I have grass plants in my house that have never experienced the occurrence of rain...how is it that they survive? Furthermore, they have from time to time become wet from me spilling various liquids on them, yet it hasn't rained in my house ever. Let me use an analogy to sum up Pro's flawed arguments. Since Pro lives in Canada, it's likely they didn't really relate to my American football analogy, so let's try a more accepted American sport, baseball. If we were trying to prove that a used baseball found in the outfield bleachers was evidence of a home run, we wouldn't need to demonstrate that unused baseballs exist. Pro is proving the existence of unused baseballs (rainwater) rather than proving the occurrence of a home run (rain event). Now, one cause of a used ball being in the outfield bleachers (wet grass) is that a home run (rain) occurred. But showing that there would be no baseball game (water cycle) if there were no baseball (rainwater) is irrelevant to whether or not a home run (rain event) caused the used ball (wet grass) to end up in the outfield bleachers. Instead, Pro should be showing that simply the used baseball in the bleachers (wet grass) is a result of an occurrence of a home run (rain event). Pro also enjoys employing the logical fallacy affirming the consequent, specifically, confusion of necessity and sufficiency. https://en.wikipedia.org... The form of the fallacy is: 1. If P (grass), then Q (rain). 2. Q (rain). 3. Therefore P (grass). A necessary condition (grass) must be there, but it alone does not provide sufficient cause for the occurrence of the event (rain). Only the sufficient grounds can do this. In other words, all of the necessary elements must be there. http://www.txstate.edu... Pro also commits the fallacy of the single cause, which is a reduction fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes. Just like when Pro assumes there is a single cause (rain) of an outcome (wet grass) when in reality it may have been caused by a number of jointly sufficient causes like snow, urine, beer, or gasoline. https://en.wikipedia.org... Pro also says giving all possibilities in a category of possible wet grass causes equal probability is "like saying that the probability of Hillary Clinton's to win the Democratic nomination for President in 2016 is 1/6 = 16.67%, but her actual chances are 57.0% at the time of this posting," Hey Pro, where do you think you get the 57% figure from...it wouldn't be from other evidence like polls would it? Because with wet grass, all you have are possible candidates, there aren't any polls for a likely causer of the wet grass. If the only evidence we had is that there will be an election and there are six candidates, then yes, the odds would be 1/6 for each candidate...there are no other pieces of evidence. For this reason, when you have non discriminant evidence, like wet grass, you must assume that all possible causes have equal probability. Finally, per the definition, "wet" means "covered in water or ANOTHER LIQUID" This means that we could find grass covered in alcohol, or oil, or gasoline, or vinegar, or sulfuric acid, and Pro would claim that this is evidence of a particular occurrence of rain in relation to this wet grass. Without explaining how a particular rain event lead to this grass's acquiring of alcohol to make it wet, Pro cannot therefore demonstrate that wet grass, covered in something that is not water based, was caused by a particular rain event. So Pro 1. Knowing that "rain" is a dynamic concept, do you still wish to claim that it exists? 2. Do you understand the fallacy of composition that nullifies your claim that you only need to show grass OR wetness to be evidence of rain? You need to show WET GRASS to be evidence of a particular occurrence of rain. 3. So since another liquid besides water can make the grass wet, can you explain how a particular occurrence of rain is evidenced by grass covered in alcohol? 4. Please stop affirming the consequent, or committing reduction fallacies to make an indirect causation between rain being everywhere and a result of wet grass. 5. You have 10,000 characters to actually attempt the real resolution which would be to demonstrate that wet grass, alcohol covered or otherwise, is evidence that a particular occurrence of rain is responsible. If you can get from a rain event to alcohol grass without using your fallacies, by all means please do.