Conditional statements may be determined to be true whether or not the conditions are true.

I recently affirmed the proposition offered here again for your consideration. Some seemed to be lulled into believing that posted, incomplete effort by TSH rebutted my simple truth claim regarding the fundamental, true principle accepted amongst critical thinking authorities and practitioners: Proposition: Conditional statements may be determined to be true whether or not the conditions are true. Example, with a little, simple symbolism: If p, then q. p. q. The conditional there is the statement "if p, then q", and that is proposed as true in the context of proposing a logically valid, sound argument justifying the conclusion q. The condition is the "if p" portion of the conditional. The meaningfulness of the issue as to the conditional may be summarized as follows, not intended to be an exhaustive exposition on its meaningfulness: First, if the conditional is determined to be true, then one can move on to the next step of determining whether or not, in fact, the condition is true and the conclusions reached by the argument proposed. Second, if the conditional is determined not to be true, then one can disregard the argument in favor of one more suitable to the support of the conclusion q. In either case, the conditional statement is meaningful. In the earlier failed effort to rebut my truth claim regarding conditional statements, TSH got sidetracked by an effort to rebut the truth claim as to the example I presented, ran out of space and failed to rebut the truth claim as to my example and, more importantly, and failed to come anywhere near close to rebutting the following claim: Conditional statements may be determined to be true whether or not the conditions are true. I suspect that TSH now recognizes the failure even while so many have been deceived by the effort; thinking something was posted that actually rebutted my simple, commonly and professionally accepted principle. That TSH may have been aware of the failure even at the time of the posting is implied by his conclusion; a conclusion which was NOT, NOT, NOT: THEREFORE, conditional statements may NOT, NOT, NOT be determined to be true whether or not the conditions are not true. NO, NO, NO! What TSH concluded was only a faulty, subjective opining regarding a universal negative: http://www.debate.org... - If the condition is wrong, - then the conditional is meaningless. - -- TSH In the context of the discussion of these important issues, that statement implies an inability to rebut my claim that the following is true: Conditional statements may be determined to be true whether or not the conditions are true. If you like the humor to be found in the antics of my adversaries here, you might appreciate this observation of the hypocrisy so common amongst them: - It is meaningful to be able to determine - when conditional statements used in support - of a conclusion contain conditions that - are "wrong" (i.e., that the argument so - proposed is unsound), so TSH's conditional - statement above can be easily determined - to be false. I am posting this additional challenge in order to give my primary adversaries, TSH, Mangani, Bladerunner060, et al, another chance to try and rebut a simple, almost universally accepted truth for my further consideration; or to find a champion to send forth to do their bidding for them. The vote in the previous debate currently stands at: - TSH 24 - RLBaty 0 That itself is a further testimony to one or more of utilitarian "points" to be made as a result of observing the behavior and claims of those coming monitor to monitor with my little critical thinking exercises. I again thank y'all for the contributions to the popular public discussion of these important issues. In closing, and with a little more clarity this time around, here is the proposition for consideration of any Debate.Org champion who may not agree with my position: Proposition: Conditional statements may be determined to be true whether or not the conditions are true. Affirm: RLBaty Deny: ??? As before, I propose the following in support of my affirmative: Arguments are built with propositions. Propositions assert that something is the case or that something is not the case. A proposition may be affirmed or denied. Propositions are either true or false. A conditional statement asserts that in case the antecedent is true, its consequent will be true also. A conditional statement does not assert that its antecedent, or any portion thereof, is true, but only that if its antecedent is true, then its consequent is true also. A conditional statement does not assert its consequent is true, but only that its consequent is true if its antecedent is true. To understand the meaning of a conditional statement one must understand what the relationship of implication is. The relationship may be logical, definitional, causal, or decisional; for example. And so I conclude for reasons stated above and others, that a conditional statement may be determined to be true whether or not its conditions are true, which would be an issue for the minor premise in the example provided above, and so present the following for your further consideration and rebuttal should you have one: Proposition: Conditional statements may be determined to be true whether or not the conditions are true. Affirm: RLBaty Deny: ???