The SN 1006 Supernova is the cause of World War II

Defense of Third PremiseMy opponent has only argued against my third premise, which I already explained as following naturally from the second. I will elaborate on this and my opponent's argument.I will build timeline structures of the following form:1. A -> B denotes that B is immediately subsequent of A.2. A -> B -> C -> D denotes a chain of subsequent events.3. A ->> D denotes that D is subsequent at some point from A.Imagine the following timeline.A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> F -> G...We can conclude by definition, that the following is true:(∀xy)(x->y⇒[x≡y])This is true merely by our definition of timelines (y follows from x because of the definition of timelines, and x follows from y because at some point x must have occurred in order for y to occur), and so it necessarily is the case that any event mandates the occurrence of, or causes, the occurrence of the immediately subsequent event.We can then add on to this.(∀xyz)(x->y->z⇒[(x≡y)&(y≡z)])By conditional syllogism, this naturally follows:(∀xyz)(x->y->z⇒[x≡z])Thusly, it is demonstrated that an event causes the event subsequent to the event subsequent to it. We can continue adding on events in this chain all day, until it finally becomes generalized into this:(∀xy)(x->>y⇒[x≡y])Although there isn't a logical syllogism for infinite chains, it's fairly clear to see that this pattern would continue for any number of iterations.There you have it: logical proof that any event causes all subsequent events.Heuristic ApplicationThe example given by opponent is "the death of a cow in Vietnam and what a German man chooses to eat for dinner five minutes later."My opponent then goes on to say that "the cow's death does not mandate the occurrence of the German man choosing to eat a turkey sandwich. Whether the Vietnamese cow dies or not, the German man will choose the turkey sandwich. " .They do not even attempt to justify this, instead making an argument from incredulity, in effect claiming that it just feels like the death of the cow has nothing to do with the decision made by the man. Looking at the syllogism I provided earlier, here is the explanation for this particular example.The timeline given by opponent has this property:D->>SWhere D is the death of the Vietnamese cow and S is the German man choosing the turkey sandwich.I could simply say that my derived axiom proves that D≡S, but that would be lazy. So here is a more informal explanation.As I stated before, the timeline by definition has these two events ordered in this way. That means that in order for the event immediately subsequent of the death of the Vietnamese cow to occur, the death of the Vietnamese cow must occur. My opponent asks the hypothetical "What would happen if the death didn't occur?" in the hopes that the answer will not change the dinner decision, and thus prove my third premise false.Regarding D not happening, there are two possibilities here for why this would be:A: The timeline given by my opponent is still correct, but event D is simply not occurring.B: This is a different timeline in which D is not on the timeline.If A is true, then that means time has stopped. That is the only way an event on the timeline wouldn't occur. This naturally means that events after D would also not happen, including of course S. So yes, the cow not dying would prevent the German man's decision.If B is true, then my opponent's example makes no sense and is completely irrelevant because these are two different timelines, and a difference in one has no bearing on the other.Once again I hand it over to Con.