2+2=5, Not 4.

It is a fascinating argument that Con has proffered in this second round. In it, he asserts that I assert that he is wrong. To ascertain the truth of this claim, we must define "assert". According to Marriam-Webster, it is1. to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively.2. a : to demonstrate the existence of. b : to speak or act in a manner that compels recognition especially of one's rightsIt is patently obvious that the Pro case in the first round does comply with all the definitions given. However, this leads to an interesting question. Is asserting wrong? The answer lies somewhere in the negative. An assertion which demonstrates the existence of something necessarily cannot be wrong. Thus, half of Con's second round argument is valid as well as sound. It is worthwhile to note that under this definition, Con himself has been asserting throughout this debate. The second contention we come to is the question of validity of argumentation. What is validity? According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, . http://www.iep.utm.edu... is: "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. . .. . According to the definition of a deductive argument (see the Deduction and Induction), the author of a deductive argument always intends that the premises provide the sort of justification for the conclusion whereby if the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true as well. Loosely speaking, if the author’s process of reasoning is a good one, if the premises actually do provide this sort of justification for the conclusion, then the argument is valid. In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The following argument is valid, because it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to nevertheless be false: Either Elizabeth owns a Honda or she owns a Saturn. Elizabeth does not own a Honda. Therefore, Elizabeth owns a Saturn. "This is a valid argument. Con has been proven false because my conclusions necessarily follow from the premises. It is otherwise impossible. .On to the question of soundness of argumentation (Which Con failed to provide, I will, however, guard against a soundness argument with this argument of mine own) From the same source: "A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. "This definition of sound forces us to consider the truth value of my argumentation. What is truth? Pilate once asked. If there had been Marriam-Websters around at the time, he would have found out that truth is: 1 a archaic : fidelity, constancyb : sincerity in action, character, and utterance 2 a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual realityb : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true c : the body of true statements and propositions 3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or realityb chiefly British : true 2c : fidelity to an original or to a standard It is obvious that all my premises are true because they are in the state of being the case. Given the assumptions, which has no truth value, my arguments following are all very true. The same cannot be said for the Con case, where he did not build a case from first principles.