Wet Grass Is Evidence Of Rain

He's accusing me that I committed several logical fallacies! I love philosophy and will explain to the reader how all my opponent's arguments fall short. Definition Battle My opponent spent half of his last round accusing me that I've changed the definition. He alleges that I "smuggle[d] in [my] own definition of rain to make [my] burden of proof to prove water". But this is plainly false. The resolution clearly states that "Wet grass is evidence of rain" and rain is defined as "moisture condensed from the atmosphere that falls visibly in separate drops". Nowhere in the definition does it state that it's about 1) occurrence or 2) event or 3) dynamic or 4) rainwater…etc. Absolutely no where! It's Con who is redefining the resolution. So let's stick to the definition as stated in Round 1. So the resolution can be written as such (strictly from the definition). "Wet grass is evidence of moisture condensed from the atmosphere that falls visibly in separate drops" My two contentions meet that definition clearly. When I prove that grass couldn't have existed without "moisture condensed from the atmosphere that falls visibly in separate drops", I therefore met the definition. Con then talks about Stative and Dynamic verbs. The funny thing that the only verb in the resolution is "is". Rain is a noun. What Con is referring to are the new additional definitions that he provided of "exist" and "occur". It's the responsibility of the instigator to specify and clarify the resolution in Round 1. Changing the resolution based on what the instigator perceived it is not acceptable. My burden of proof is to affirm the resolution as it was defined in Round 1. Proving that water exists? No… Con challenges "By saying that rain exists, Pro is by definition talking about water existing, not the meteorological occurrence of rain" Con's analysis is flawed. I never argued that my burden was to prove that water exists! Without rain and without grass, water may or may not exist. On Mars, there is no water, no grass and no wet grass. What I demonstrated was: The fact that there is water on the grass would have definitely not happened if rain didn't exist. To put it logically: R: rain exists (moisture condensed from the atmosphere that falls visibly in separate drops) W: water would have either remained in the salty oceans, remained deep inside the Earth or evaporated in the atmosphere G: water on grass P1: If ~R, W. (i. e. Without rain, water cycle would be broken and there would be no water on land - See Round 2) P2: If W, ~G. (If all water away from land, there would be no water on grass) P3: G (By definition, there is water on grass) C1: ~W (From P2, P3) C3: R (From P1, C1) (i. e. Rain exists) Therefore I affirm the resolution. Composition Fallacy? No… Con argues that I commit the composition fallacy when I prove that grass also is evidence of rain, and that wetness is evidence of rain. Con's claim is false, and he doesn't understand the fallacy. The fallacy states that "one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole" [1]. For example, every cell in an elephant is small, so the elephant is small. But I don't commit this fallacy, and I'll explain it here. Composition refers to the properties of parts (something is true of some part) and the properties of the whole. In the example of the elephant, "smallness" is a property of the cells, and it's fallacious to apply this property to the whole. But I didn't do that! I never said that Rain is not true of some part! That's absurd. What I argued was: P1: If wet grass exists, then grass exists. P2: If grass exists, then rain exists. (See round 2) P3: Wet grass exists (Definition) C1: Grass exists (From P1, P3) C2: Rain exists (From P2, C1) There is no fallacy here. Therefore, I fulfill my BoP and affirm the resolution. Baseball Analogy I am from Canada, but I love the Blue Jays. So I do understand Baseball. And Con's analogy doesn't impact my arguments at all. First, his example fails to relate to my logic. His example allegorizes "home run" to "rain" and "baseball" to "rainwater"! What? ! If home run was rain, then rainwater would be a baseball hit, not baseball. Rainwater would have to be "water". So the example is terrible! Second, Con agrees that "one cause of a used ball being in the outfield bleachers (wet grass) is that a home run (rain) occurred". But this example is lacking! In my case, wet grass wouldn't and couldn't have existed without rain. However, outfield bleachers could very well exist if no home run ever existed. So this is another poor rebuttal. Logical fallacy affirming the consequent? No… Con argues that my argument follows this structure: 1. If P (grass), then Q (rain). 2. Q (rain). 3. Therefore P (grass). That's not my argument. I didn't try to prove that grass exists! What non sense! My argument is like this: 1. If P (grass), then Q (rain). 2. P (grass). 3. Therefore Q (rain). This is a valid logical argument! Logical fallacy of the single cause? No… Con argues that my argument that rain is the single cause. Where does he come up with this stuff? Grass requires many causes, including temperature, right soil, sunlight…etc. But what I did was prove that grass could not have ever existed without rain! So my argument doesn't commit such a fallacy. I stand by my argument. Rebutting Con's new definition of the resolution What happens if we accept Con's new definition? Would I lose or concede the debate? No. Even with Con's new definition, he still fails to fulfill his Burden of Proof. I'll explain below: Con's only argument is that rain has 16.67% chance. His reasoning is that with the lack of evidence, the chance would be equal. His words: "then yes, the odds would be 1/6 for each candidate. .. there are no other pieces of evidence. " There are several major problems in Con's analogy: 1. Con's argument is undoubtedly an Argument from Ignorance [2]. Basically, "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)". This is similar to God of the Gaps arguments [3]. Basically, if we don't have enough data to know the likelihood of every possibility, then it's safe to assume that the possibility is equally distributed. That's fallacious. I'll give an example. Humans can have sex with other humans, or can have sex with animals (bestiality [4]). Without evidence or stats, according to Con, it's safe to assume that humans are just as likely to have sex with an animal that with another human (50% chance). Therefore, Con has failed to fulfill his Burden of Proof! 2. I've already demonstrated evidence that rain is the most likely cause. I've shown that rain deposits most of the fresh water on Earth [5]. Con failed to respond to this argument. It is only logical that grass is most likely to be covered with rain water, than other types of waters or liquids. I would also note that there are large areas with natural grass in forests and vast lands. The probability of urine, oil, beer in these areas is astronomically less that rain which "deposits most of the fresh water on Earth". Please note that I don't have to prove that wet grass can only be caused by rain. I only have to demonstrate that the likely cause of wetness is rain. Since most of the water deposited on Earth (sorry to be repetitive) is rain, the most likely cause of wet grass is therefore rain. With Con failing to fulfill his BoP, and me turning this argument against him, I affirm the resolution. Please vote Pro. Thank you Con for this debate. Sources [1] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . https://en.wikipedia.org...