The SN 1006 Supernova is the cause of World War II

MisconceptionsOne: Quantum physics equations? No, it's called Predicate Logic and it's a system of formal logic. I could have used Sentential Logic but I felt that Predicate worked better for the example I was showing. In any case, a conditional syllogism of the form I was using is merely a form of deductive logic. It denotes a flowing over of two conditional statements by adjoining them into one. It generally takes the form "if A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C". Whether or not advertisers use this is completely irrelevent and is a genetic fallacy. The validity of a logical principle is not dependant upon who uses it.Two: Timelines may a concept, but they are an excellent model for historical processes and the progression of time in general because our perceptions of time tend to be linear. If my opponent has a better way of modelling time than as an ordered sequence of events in which the occurrence of one triggers the occurrence of the next, then I'm all ears.The Cow and Turkey Sandwich ExampleActually, I merely stated that your example does not serve to invalidate my point. Point of fact, my demonstration that this is an argument from incredulity was not my primary argument against this example.Your main argument with the example is that we can imagine a timeline in which at one point a cow dies and at another point a man decides to eat a sandwich, and that we can also imagine a timeline in which the cow does not die but the man still decides to eat the sandwich at the same time, and so therefore the death of the cow did not mandate the man's decision.Since my original rebuttal seemed to fly over my opponent's head, I'll provide a new one. Imagine a scenario in which two men are pointing guns at a third man. If the first man shoots, the third man will die. If the second man shoots, the third man will die. Now imagine that we know for a fact that in minutes, the second man will shoot. Suppose that five minutes later, the first man does not shoot but the third man still dies. Would you conclude that if the first man had shot but the second man hadn't, nothing would have happend to the third man? Of course not. That would be making the fallacy of denying the antecedent.This scenario is analogous to my opponent's scenario in that in both cases, the erroneous conclusion is that because we can imagine a world in which one event happens and a second one happens later but also a world in which the first event doesn't happen but the second one does, that it follows that the first event's occurrence would not mandate the ocurrence of the second. This of course ignores the phenomena outside of these two events. In the case of my opponent's example, the outside phenomenon is the fact that time is moving forward, ultimately actualizing the decision of the man to eat the sandwich. Every event that ever occurs moves time forward, and the death of the cow is no exception.In addition, my opponent's plea to common sense is merely a dressing up of "use your intuition" which is a terrible guide to good conclusions.Alternate CausesThis is mostly a semantics word game. In actuality, no event ever has only one cause and so it would be silly to conclude that I literally mean that the SN-1006 supernova is the only cause of World War II. This would akin to interpreting "apples are red" as "all apples are red". It's an absurd absolute. However, even accepting my opponent's ridiculous interpretation of the resolution, I can still argue that the Battle of Carrhae only caused World War II through the SN-1006 supernova. After all, causes themselves do have causes, and the SN-1006 supernova is really just a part of how time itself causes all events, and all events are part of time.This objection is insubstantial and ignores the fact that events can have multiple causes.SummaryVote for me because:1. I made logical arguments that follow the premise-conclusion format and are both valid and have true premises2. The progression of time causes all events, and all events cause the progression of time, therefore any event causes any subsequent eventDo not vote for my opponent because:1. They dropped most of my argument and missed the point of it entirely2. All of their rebuttals were based on fallacies