The laws of logic are self-evident.

I'd like to point out that regardless of what my opponent puts forth, the resolution is automatically affirmed given the nature of logic itself. Classic logic [1] relies on self-evident truths called axioms; without these laws, the entire logic system we use would be irrelevant and useless. So, because classical logic absolutely does rely on self-evident truths (whether my opponent agrees with them or not), then I have automatically won this debate based on that brute fact alone. Anyone who knows the rules of logic knows that this is true. However, it is not my intention to win this debate on a semantics level. I will explain how, why and that the laws of logic are self-evident, and see if my opponent can really argue that the laws of logic are not or should not be self-evident as he has claimed on more than one occasion. In traditional logic, an axiom is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated, but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths [2]. For instance, an example of a self-evident truth is the notion that a finite whole is greater than any of its parts. This is something that seems "obviously true" because it is. So, self-evident axioms exist. There are three self-evident logic axioms: 1. The law of identity 2. The law of the excluded middle 3. The law of non-contradiction * The law of identity states that anything is itself. In other words, A = A. * Tautologies follow the first law, and assert that something is either A, or not A. * The final law follows the second, and posits that nothing can be both A and not A simultaneously. These laws are self-evident because they exist to prove themselves. Their truth is inescapable. As soon as you try to disprove any one of them, you find that you must assume it to be true. For example, the law of identity states that A = A; everything is equivalent to itself. If one were trying to disprove the law of identity, then he would not be trying to disprove the laws of gravity or the laws of motion. He would indeed be trying to disprove the law of identity (and it is not the law of gravity or the law of motion). The law of identity is exactly that: the law of identity. Thus, the first axiom must be assumed. The second law (tautologies) can be explained in the same manner. One cannot both be A and ~A. If A refers to "I am American" then ~A cannot be true. In other words, if I am an American, then I cannot NOT be an American. This is precisely why my opponent's statement that one can be both typing and not typing at the same time is false. Of course if one defines "typing" in two ways then it is possible; however, two separate definitions would mean that you're not referring to the same thing, meaning the law would not apply. And finally, the law of non-contradiction follows in the same way. If you tried to disprove the law of non-contradiction, then you'd be trying to prove that it was false that something could not be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. However, in doing so, you are assuming the very law that you're trying to disprove! Another example: If I say that my kitchen table is made of wood, then I cannot also say that it is not made of wood (at the same time). In doing so, I would have made two statements that exclude the possibility of the other. As such, we would be presented with an impossible contradiction. In conclusion, self-evident truths exist. To deny the validity of the inherent (self-evident) laws of logic would result in retortion -- presenting arguments that rely upon the very principles it seeks to overturn. In other words, how does my opponent plan on countering my argument? Any point that he presents will undoubtedly be based on logic. However, if these fundamental laws are not self-evident, then the entire foundation of logic is dismantled meaning his arguments are completely irrelevant. With that, I send the debate over to Con. "Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason. If with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument. " -- Ethan Allen . .. not the furniture guy :p [1] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://plato.stanford.edu...