Do youagree with the Ten Commandments of Logic

[Salty]

Do you agree with all ten?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Absolutely.

 

[Oldtimer]

Do you agree with all ten?

NO!

Best example:

Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities.

Thou shalt not kill.

Yes or No.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

NO!

Best example:



Thou shalt not kill.

Yes or No.

That is not relevant. That is not a debate argument.

 

[Revmitchell]

8. Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. (Burden of proof reversal)

This seems to be the current favorite tactic around here.

 

[Oldtimer]

That is not relevant. That is not a debate argument.

Murder of unborn babies is much debated. Is it a sin to kill a baby after conception? Regardless of how the argument is framed, it is still only a choice between a yes or no position.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

8. Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. (Burden of proof reversal)

This seems to be the current favorite tactic around here.

It is not just a tactic. It is true. The person making a claim bears the burden of proving that claim. Otherwise, it is dismissed out of hand.

 

[thegospelgeek]

No. For two basic reasons.

Sometimes a debate or argument can only have two possibilities.

Secondly, the so call 10 Commandments of logic have nothing to do with logic. They apply to debating, not logic. Different subjects.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is not just a tactic. It is true. The person making a claim bears the burden of proving that claim. Otherwise, it is dismissed out of hand.

You misunderstood my post. I was told recently on this board by a Calvinist that they had no burden to prove or back up their claim that was being questioned because they were the one's with the real truth and the person (me) questioning their claim carried the burden to prove their claim wrong.

 

[Alcott]

8. Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim.

Case 1:
"God does exist."
"Prove it."
"I've already had it proven enough for me."
"I ain't for me."

Case 2:
"God does not exist."
"Prove it."
"I see no evidence of him, so he's not there any more than Zeus, Marduk, or Thor."
"That's not proof of his nonexistence to my satisfaction."

In both cases-- and I've heard or read lots of either-- the argument inevitably turns to the burden of proof being on the one questioning the claim. In case 1 to "Prove he doesn't exist," and in case 2 to "Prove he does exist." But would there be anything to debate if it didn't?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

You misunderstood my post. I was told recently on this board by a Calvinist that they had no burden to prove or back up their claim that was being questioned because they were the one's with the real truth and the person (me) questioning their claim carried the burden to prove their claim wrong.

Ah, so I did misunderstand. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[carpro]

It is not just a tactic. It is true. The person making a claim bears the burden of proving that claim. Otherwise, it is dismissed out of hand.

Really?

You made this claim:

People are much more likely to be injured by their own gun than by any intruder. Statistical fact.

in another thread : http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=84129&page=3


When called on to prove your preposterous claim, you vanished from the thread. And it was your thread.

Care to correct either your statement in this thread or the other? You can't have it both ways. That would be hypocritical.