P1: All Time is of the Essence; P2: All Essence Precedes Existence; C: All Existence Precedes Time

Drafterman has failed to adequately define concession. I’m sorry I do not understand? Does Drafterman want from me a grant of my land in return for his intellectual services? That's the caveman lawyer fallacy. Drafterman did say “around these parts” referring to our territory. Drafterman wants my property some of the time. Drafterman might be threatening me!Argumentum ad Baculum! I’m undecided as to what Drafterman means by concession. Drafterman’s claim is irrelevant. Drafterman’s “categorical syllogism” interpretation was never implied by the thesis statement of this debate. Another form of syllogism Aristotle coined was “practical syllogism”. Although Drafterman has presented one valid argument it does not pertain to this debate, i.e. my argument; rather, his valid argument pertains to the debate in which he misconstrues my practical syllogism with a categorical syllogism, and renders that categorical syllogism false. The categorical syllogism Drafterman presents is neither true nor false. There are exactly 256 distinct forms of categorical syllogism: 4 kinds of major premise multiplied by 4 kinds of minor premise multiplied by 4 kinds of conclusion multiplied by 4 relative positions of the middle term. No categorical syllogism’s are practical syllogism’s. Therefore his valid deductive categorical syllogism does not imply inclusion to my practickle syllogism. The syllogism originates with Aristotle, of course, and he presents the fact in Nichomachean Ethics, that the practical syllogism does not consist of at least three propositions. The major premise and a minor premise lead to a practical conclusion or what is simply an action or verb or intention or command or judgment or SOMETHING NEITHER TRUE NOR FALSE or existence and nonexistence or the assertion ‘constitutes a valid syllogism’---for example. Practical syllogisms are only called syllogisms analogically but the one practical syllogism I have presented happens to exist. Observable is that Drafterman is using the genetic fallacy, which the definition of is denial (Drafterman was or sometimes is still in denial) by explaining the origins (genus---Aristotelian) of a belief in categorical syllogisms, rather than attacking the rational basis for supporting my argument---a practical syllogism. The rational basis for supporting my practical syllogism goes as follows: Drafterman states: “I used those premises [the equivalent, as in our, major and minor premises], as is, to demonstrate that they actually entail a conclusion [again implied as Categorical, but not to begin with] that is the opposite of the conclusion presented by Pro. Why did Drafterman not state this when Drafterman presented his first round? After all, time is of the essence is true. He is begging the question. That is, Drafterman creates the illusion that inadequate premises [the conclusions we present are opposites or even time is of the essence is not true] provide adequate support for that conclusion by leaving out some key premise(s) and by restating the conclusion as a premise.The Latin name for this fallacy, petitio principii, means ‘‘request for the source of the truth" Please note: I implied Drafterman’s premise to be ‘time is not of the essence’ because Drafterman did not present the statement I am using these premises to demonstate they are valid for the reason of: what? Today is opposite day? Thaaaaanks. Why? That would beg the question. Let’s consider the assertion ‘constitutes a valid syllogism’ very closely, paying attention to that word ‘constitutes’. We can see that by itself ‘constitutes a valid syllogism’ can be neither true nor false. After all, what would it be that ‘constitutes a valid syllogism’? The original proposition (thesis statement), however, also has a subject, thus making the proposition itself true or false. It is what is that ‘constitutes a valid syllogism.’ There must be an answer. My claim is that the proposition I present is true and is the only one. As the anterior of the 1st round I have explained the following as my entire argument: the syllogism that modifies the noun ‘argument’ I have presented as constituting a ‘VALID’ syllogism, in particular. Valid is a quality of the syllogism, that is practically. The reason was time is of the essence and the essence (the very freedom of consciousness) precedes the existence of the present truth. REFERENCES: Wikipedia’s Article Titled ‘Practical Syllogism’ http://en.wikipedia.org... The idea that any deductive argument having actually true premises and a false conclusion is invalid may be the most important point in all of deductive logic. The entire system of deductive logic would be quite useless if it accepted as valid ANY inferential process by which a person could start with truth in the premises and arrive at falsity in the conclusion. God exists implies deductive logic is inferior in virtue of the implication if God exists is false (the most important point in all deductive logic), then there would be no reason to use deductive logic. At least the two types of syllogism have similar images.