It is impossible to argue against logic.

My opponent states that I am "dead wrong" by stating that logic is explaining an event based on knowledge you already have; however, his definition of logic is "a way of organizing premises to form a conclusion." These two definitions are one in the same. In Fact, his definition is very vague and very well encompasses my own. Logic is the human attempt to explain a certain phenomenon, using prior and current knowledge as well as common outcomes to draw conclusions to which answer makes the most sense under the rules that govern what we already know. In order to make a conclusion about something, you have to have previous knowledge. Your "three-tier" system as I call it ties into both of our definitions. Here is your example: 1) logic fails 2) something that fails has plenty of basis to be argued against –(implicit) 3) Ergo there is plenty of basis to argue against Logic For one to make a conclusion about anything requires some degree of knowledge. For you to make the assumption that logic fails, requires you to know of an event in history when logic has failed. Without that knowledge you can not make the assumption nor can you draw a conclusion. For example, in order for me to conclude that a shirt is red, I would have to know, understand, and recognize the color red. I know what the color red has looked like in the past, I know what I've been shown it looks like, and based on those two experiences, I can logically recognize the shirt is red. Throughout history, there are countless everyday examples of when logic has failed. A member of my extended family was involved in a serious car accident about two years ago. As a result, she suffered a broken neck, and several shattered vertebrae. Based on the doctors' logical conclusions, which were rooted in years of medical school and previous experience, he concluded that she would never walk again. That member has defied logic in that she is now walking, healthy, and happy despite what physical and medical logic interpreted. Now she can walk and she jogs every morning. The advancement of scientific technology in itself defies logic. 100 years ago (1908), the concept of a 200 lb piece of metal flying into space was absurd and considered not possible, however in 1957 the Russians patented and launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite in space. This defied logic because, based on previous and present knowledge, this simply was not possible. The basic concept that the earth was round defies what was logical at the time. Based on the knowledge that was obtained at the time, the earth had an end; go too far and you fall of the face of it. Logic changes over time because knowledge grows over time, the more we learn the more possibilities we uncover, thus the once illogical things slowly become logical and possible. Logic is arguable, it constantly changes over time with the growth of new technology as well as more knowledge. It is rooted in our knowledge on the subject and our ability to draw a reasonable conclusion based on that knowledge. But without knowledge, there is no logic. Logic can always be questioned and argued, it simply depends on how much you know about the topic.