logic is cause and effect

Responding to my opponent's most recent commentIf you can't explain your conception of logic then you've failed to make a positive case for the proposition that "Logic is cause and effect". The meaning of your "Equations" seem apparent only to you, as I have no idea what you mean by them.I cannot understand the slightest bit of what you mean by the following:"cause=random+specified""sum of all logic=chaos+order"You've made no arguments, only assertions. The majority of your assertions are not coherent. You failed to explain what you mean when you say: Logic Random Specifiec Sum-of-all-logic (as if logic is a quantifiable parameter?) Chaos Order Absolute True Reality. Cause-and-effect I have definitions for each of these words, and I've defined some of them in this debate, but clearly you have different understandings of what these words actually mean. You need to make an argument. You need to explain your position.You have claimed that "logic is not logical" which is untrue by definition- It is a direct contradiction.and that "all dogs are poodles" which is completely and obviously untrue."you said.. logic is part of reality.. ok which part of reality is not logic?Great question! I'm glad you asked. Logic is only one small part of reality. Parts of reality which are not logic are: Causality, the universal constants, the universal forces, time, matter, energy, and space- just to name a few parts."or as i claim, cause and effect"This is a fragment. I don't have any idea what this means, and it doesn't make sense as a subordinate clause of the prior sentence.Repeating myselfLogic is a way of determining what something is in relation to another thing. The statement "A=A" is a logical statement because A will always equal A. That's the way this universe is. Value A will always have a value of A.Logical statements usually come in the form of "If... Then""If Barack Obama is a president and all presidents are fish then Barack Obama is a fish" is a logical statement. It's factually untrue, but it's logically sound.Another way of making logical statements is in the form of a syllogism:"Premise 1: Barack Obama is a presidentPremise 2: All presidents are fishTherefore (from 1&2): Barack Obama is a fish"Looking at it this way, you can see that premise 2 is factually inaccurate, even though it is logical. The method was correct, but the facts were incorrect.An illogical statement would look like:"Premise 1: Barack Obama is black"Premise 2: Barack Obama is a presidentTherefore (from 1&2): All Presidents are black"This is an illogical statement because the method of coming to the conclusion was incorrect. Just because SOME presidents are black doesn't mean ALL presidents are black. The facts were correct, but the method was incorrect.Notice that there is ZERO cause and ZERO effect going on here. Causality has nothing to do with this scenario.An invitation for my opponent to concedeI have already proveded sources for my position. I invite my opponent to provide sources so that maybe I can understand what he's talking about. If we agree, I'll recend my limitation for no new arguments to be introduced in the final round, since my opponent has yet to introduce a single argument.Failing this, I invite my opponent to concede. I will be more than happy to provide education over personal messages.