The laws of logic are self-evident.

Thank you for the clarification that the source was merely meant for background information of some sort, and not required at all for the argument. My opponent puts forward the claim that her "self-evident" statement "would be true whether or not I had ever learned that or 'experienced' it, or if anyone else had ever learned or experienced it. " However, let's take another fact that we would not consider to be self-evident at all: the fact that carbon sublimates at 3800ï¿½C. This would be true despite anybody's knowledge or experience, just like my opponent's "self-evident" statement; however, that fact cannot make something self-evident, or else carbon's sublimation point would be self-evident, and I only know that because a chemistry website (. http://chemistry.about.com...) said so, because scientists empirically proved it to be true. Nobody decided to just say that carbon would sublimate at a given temperature; it just does, and we have proven it to do so, and therefore know it to do so. One cannot disprove this scientific fact, but carbon's sublimation point is still not self-evident. Therefore, what my opponent says, while true, does not intrinsically make her statement self-evident. I have never agreed that axioms are self-evident. I don't see where my opponent gets that conclusion, and she didn't do a very good job at explaining. My opponent points out that argument necessitates logic. That is all that was required. My opponent claims that one cannot prove that a book is a book. However, to call something a book requires a definition for book. Let's use, "a set of written sheets bound together into a volume" (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Now, I am given that A is a book. I must prove that A is a book. Now, I know that A is a set of written sheets bound together into a volume, because it is a book. Therefore, because A matches the definition of "book," it is a book. I have proven A (a book) to be a book. Rather simple, but still proof. I could do this for any object that my opponent would wish to present. I could prove a table to be a table; cinnamon to be cinnamon; an iPod to be an iPod. I can prove the Law of Identity. Anybody and everybody can prove the Law of Identity, and everybody does prove the Law of Identity to themselves, and that is why we know it. Because the Law of Identity is proven, it cannot be self-evident. As for Aristotle's quote, he explains the Law of Identity to be "because each thing is inseparable from itself, and it's being one just meant this. " Sounds like a proof for the Law of Identity. If Aristotle has to be dragged in to explain something, then it's not evidencing itself. My opponent criticizes my mentioning of proof by exhaustion. This would probably explain it better: one realizes that for any object with definition A, if it is given to be A, then it has the properties of A, and by the definition of A, anything with the properties of A is A, and therefore, A is A. It's more like a substitution of all possible objects A, I guess. Exhaustion of everything at once. Similarly, one realizes that for any description A, given the definition of "opposite" involving shifting among pairs (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...), if an object is A, then it is A, and if it is not A; else, it is ~A. Simple as that. Finally, one realizes that A is not ~A by realizing that ~ means "not," and we have the Law of Contradiction. My opponent again claims that if something cannot be countered without assuming it to be true, then it must be self-evident. However, this looks more like a proof of validity than a proof of self-evidence, as a proof of self-evidence by definition cannot exist. Let's take proposition B: anything is either A or not A. First, I assume it to be true (B), and realize that I can possibly argue in favor of B (B). Then I assume it to be false (~B), and realize that I cannot disprove it, and therefore, (~B) cannot be true. Through deductive reasoning, I realize that B must be true (B). This is a rather informal proof, but still a proof. Therefore, I have proven B: anything is either A or not A. However, most people wouldn't even attempt this informal proof, and prove it by the definition of "opposite" or "not," as explained two paragraphs above. Now, my opponent criticizes my statement, "However, this is merely a proof for the law of identity. " Well, my opponent did prove the law of identity through deductive reasoning, did she not? Finally, I am criticized for saying, "By examples and truth, and not self-evidence, the law of identity is proven, and therefore not self-evident. " The point is that for something to be self-evident, it must be known WITHOUT proof, and as it is known WITH proof, it cannot be self-evident. My opponent claims that I have accepted a self-evident truth. This is false; I've only accepted truths that have been proven. My opponent claims that the laws of logic "prove themselves. " However, for a proposition to be self-evident, it must be "known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof. " This is obviously a contradiction, as if something proves itself, then its meaning is understood, with proof. My opponent has contradicted her own definition. She admits that these axioms, "known. .. without proof," to be proven. Therefore, they are not self-evident. My opponent's entire argument from this point collapses. In conclusion, I have proven the axioms that my opponent claims to be self-evident, and therefore not proven. My opponent has done nothing, really, to defend her first "self-evident" statement. She has even admitted her axioms to prove themselves, and therefore, they cannot be self-evident. As the axioms upon which classical logic (Why did we even throw "classical" in here? It's not in the resolution. .. ) rests are not self-evident, the laws of logic are not self-evident.