logic is cause and effect

I will now respond to his points one by one. Firstly, my opponent continues to elaborate the 'fantasy' point, saying that we cannot determine whether a mushroom is good to eat without a mushroom. I cannot agree more, but it is still unclear how this is related to the relationship between logic and causation. I have inferred that he's using this as an example of logic involving cause and effect. But it's not clear what sort of logic was involved here and what the cause and effect are; besides, as I have stated before, one example of logic and cause and effect being related doesn't mean the two can be equated. My opponent has to elucidate this to prove his point. Likewise, I ask that my opponent explain the meaning of 'it isnt necessary to define more then 1 cause to define a cause', for it remains opaque. My opponent then claims that 'there is logic of the mind, like love has to end with pain', and presents us with two equations. Again, these are merely bare assertions, and it's unclear what 'reason = logic experience of it' means, or how love is related to the matter at hand. My opponent then states that 'intent is mental cause', then that 'mental is not true, logic is true'. The problem is that only statements can be true or false. 'Mental' and logic aren't statements, so they can't be classified as true or false (although systems of logic can be sound or unsound, complete or incomplete). He goes on to use an analogy. I understand him to mean that 'the existence reason and logic depend on each other, but two be equated'. However, it's unclear how this is related to the resolution or my statement above. Moreover, he has previously agreed with me that logic is the study of the correct principles of reasoning. He then claims that 'there is no condition without a cause', and why I thought there wasa difference. However, I've already shown with three examples, a psychological experiment and an additional example in the third round that conditions (used in logic) and cause are not the same. My opponent misunderstands what a necessary condition is. If A is a necessary condition of B, then if B is true, then A must be true. Let A be 'A tsunami occured' and B be 'The house collapsed'. If B is true, we cannot conclude that A is true because the house could have collapsed because of the tornado alone. My opponent was correct in saying that 'franks action was necessary for the coin to land tails. ' He apparently concedes the validity of my argument by saying 'if frank never flipped the coin, it would have never been tails by his actions. ' I understand this to mean that Frank did not cause the coin to land tails, i. e. Frank's action was a necessary condition but not a cause. My opponent then says that 'you cant have an action without a cause or a reaction without an effect', but it's not clear how this is related to logic. My opponent responds to my statement, 'Finally, my opponent responds to my last argument by saying 'which is to say its not about cause and effect. . but it might still be logic'. This is another concession. He has admitted that there are examples of cause and effect that are not logic. ' by claiming that 'you didnt talk about causation'. Yet I did - I said that my being a boy doesn't cause my status as a male. My opponent then says that physical experiences aren't the only things we're certain of. This is true, but again it's not clear how it's related to our resolution. He goes on to claim that 'how is it logical that unicorns are fluffy? have you seen a unicorn'. However, I never claimed it was logical that unicorns are logical, only that the syllogism was logically valid. My opponent seems to misunderstand the nature of logic. Logic has the property of topic neutrality. It can talk about whatever we want. We can even refer to entities that don't exist, as long as they're in the universe of discourse. Moreover, I've never claimed the premises were true. An argument can be valid without being sound, i. e. we're saying that IF the premises are true, THEN the conclusion is true, but we never claimed that the premises are true. ConclusionContrary to my opponent's claim, he has not refuted everything I have said so far. He seemed to have dropped my weathering, preemption and transitivity arguments, and has not given sound arguments to argue against my other points. Moreover, he is yet to present a coherent case of his own to support the resolution, although the BOP is on him. (1) . http://philosophy.hku.hk...