The laws of logic are self-evident.

Thanks, PRO, for this debate. It's been fun. It appears that I only need to mention a few things here. My opponent criticizes my introducing carbon's sublimation point as a straw man. However, she claimed that her statement, "a finite whole is greater than any of its parts," is self-evident, and went on to describe many things about the statement that would apparently make it self-evident. I merely pointed out that something with the characteristics described by my opponent doesn't intrinsically make that thing self-evident. My opponent has given no significant difference between her own statement and mine that would make one self-evident while the other not (as I have already shown why her proposition requires a simple proof to compare to the empirical evidence of carbon's sublimation). Therefore, it seems to be an easy conclusion to make that they are both either self-evident or not self-evident. Seeing as carbon's sublimation point requires proof to be known, they are not self-evident. My opponent claims that this is a straw man because "nowhere did I say that experience proved anything. " However, I never said that she did. I merely pointed out that by her own reasoning, carbon's sublimation point would be self-evident, and it's not, so her reasoning is incorrect. My opponent claims, "something is self-evident because it proves itself. " However, that does not fit the agreed-upon definition of "self-evident," "known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof. " If it proves itself, then it is known to be true with its own proof, and therefore, it cannot be self-evident. My opponent makes this claim throughout the debate: 1. "These laws are self-evident because they exist to PROVE themselves. " 2. "The laws of logic are self-evident. They PROVE themselves. " 3. "Something is self-evident because it PROVES itself. " 4. "Again - the axioms I mentioned PROVE themselves! Yes, they require PROOF. .. " 5. "They are still evidence for themselves; they are self-evident. " 6. "The law was evidence in and of itself. .. hence being self-evident! " Again, I present the definition of "self-evident": "known to be true by understanding its meaning WITHOUT PROOF. " No, self-evident does not mean, "evidencing itself," as one would probably assume. My opponent has contradicted the established definition rather badly. If they prove themselves, then they are understood with proof, and are therefore not self-evident. My opponent seems to be debating under the premise that a self-evident proposition is one that proves itself, but that's far from the established definition. After all, if they prove themselves, then how is that not proof? If she wished for her contentions to actually support the resolution, she should have defined "self-evident" differently. This was actually my conclusion in Round 3, and my opponent's only opposing response was, "if they can prove themselves, then they are indeed self-evident. " However, this is an unsourced, unsupported claim that contradicts the very definition under which we are debating. My opponent has challenged me to prove that a proof of self-evidence cannot exist. It's rather simple. The definition of "self-evident" requires a lack of proof, so to prove something to be known without proof is contradictory and impossible. My opponent claims that an axiom is self-evident by definition. I shall repeat the definition of "axiom" that I sourced: "An axiom is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but CONSIDERED to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. " This definition does not claim that axioms are self-evident, but rather, points out that they are CONSIDERED to be self-evident. My opponent's attempt at a straw man has been foiled. All of my opponent's claims about the three basic laws of logic do nothing to demonstrate that they are known without proof. In conclusion, my opponent has completely missed the mark by establishing a definition that contradicts everything she claims. The laws of logic prove themselves, and are therefore not known without proof. This is rather simple. Something that proves itself is known with proof, and therefore is not self-evident. My opponent admits the laws of logic to prove themselves, and therefore, the laws of logic are not self-evident. The resolution is negated.