The Problem of Existential Import Presents a Counter-Factual Problem for Logical Solutions

My opponent accuses me of having taken his topic 'far too seriously.' I'm not sure what he means by this, considering I have only done what is standard to do in a debate - find holes in your opponent's case and expose them. If I was supposed to ignore these holes in favor of just joking around instead, then I offer my sincerest apologies. Although I must admit, even my sincerest apologies are not all that sincere. Back to the matter at hand! ===== 1. Existential import is not a problem === O: "Existential import is indeed a problem when you make a the claim "Some P is Q" if there are no P." R: I agree that such a scenario contains a problem, but existential import is not the problem. The problem is that there are no P, where "Some P is Q" requires there to be. While my opponent has failed to back up his claim that existential import is a problem [an implicit claim of the resolutioin he is arguing for], I realize that this is not a very pressing matter. I won't waste all of our time with trivialities. ===== 2. Counterfactuals are not problems. This issue is not quite as trivial, since my opponent is making patently false claims that are relevant to the resolution. === O: "[...] a counter-factual is by its very nature a false premise." R: False. I already addressed this in round 1. A counter-factual is a single statement, it is not a premise and a conclusion. For example, here are some statements. #1. If I hadn't eaten those pancakes, I would be skinny today. #2. I hadn't eaten those pancakes. #3. I am skinny today. #1, as most of you hopefully know by now, is a counter-factual. My opponent is claiming that it has a false premise. The 'premise' in question is statement #2. Of course, the truth of statement #1 does not rely on the truth of statements #2 and #3, since it is a hypothetical. We can tell by the use of hypothetical language - if. Consider this: "If I found a million dollars on the ground, I would buy a house." That statement can be true without me having found a million dollars on the ground. This is because I am speaking hypothetically, as noted by my 'if.' For this reason, a 'false premise' is not a problem here. Since a counter-factual is inherently hypothetical, a 'false premise' does not affect its truth - and therefore does not affect the validity or soundness of an argument that uses a counter-factual. Once agian, this is because the supposed 'premise' in a counter-factual isn't asserted as true anyway, so pointing out that it is false is not problematic as it would be for an actual premise. ===== 3. Logical Solutions is not a real term I accept my opponent's new definition of it. 'Logical solution' is now defined as a sound conclusion from premises. ===== 4. Existential import does not create counter-factuals Here, my opponent provides two arguments. The first is a flawed argument, which claims that "some unicorns are gray unicorns" when gray unicorns do not even exist [or so we are to assume]. Then, in a separate argument, he changes the wording to be hypothetical, meaning his argument no longer asserts that unicorns must actually exist. The first argument had existential import, the second argument used counter-factuals. Note that existential import does not create counter-factuals. It creates an additional premise, and if that premise is false, the arguer is left with little choice but to create a counter-factual. Note first that it is the arguer presenting the counter-factual, not the existential import. Existential import may have lead to the arguer eventually making a counter-factual, but we don't say our alarm clocks brush our teeth, do we? Second, note that existential import is CERTAINLY not a problem here - it is the SOLUTION to the false premise that was present in the first argument. ===== 5. Logical Solutions, the company My opponent makes a lot of false claims here. First, he claims that programmers care about existential import. That's false. Existential import, as we've discussed in the past, is something that happens when "Some P is Q" is asserted as true. In the programming world, a statement like "Some P is Q" is a boolean - it can either be true or false. Unlike in logic, booleans in programming are not asserted as true, they are simply tested to see whether they are true or false. Here is a relevant example. We'll say there are two set objects, P and Q, and there is a function Some(set, set) that determines whether some member of P is a member of Q as well. We'll define P as an empty set. We'll say Q contains the following elements: "John", "Bob", "Susan" Some(P, Q) would return false, since no member of P is also a Q. That's it. No errors, it would simply be false. Just like the statement "Some P is Q" would be false in logic - though the logic example actually uses existential import. The computer, on the other hand, just runs through the function to determine whether it's true or not. There's no part in the code where a whole new statement would be made just to check the case where no P exists. Further, it is gross conjecture to assume that Logical Solutions, inc., creator of Escrow software, would have any code that has anything like "Some P is Q" in it at all. It's highly unlikely, and surely not common enough for my opponent to be right in simply assuming that they have such code in their products. And in any case, I accepted my opponent's new definition of 'Logical Solutions," so this entire programming point is off-topic.