Dissecting opponent's logic process

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #19151

    I made this post
    “I make the claim that the free market is more efficient than government at meeting the needs of customers.

    In order for me to remain consistent, just as any idea, it needs to be tested at both extremes.

    I expect the same from anyone who says government does a better job.”

    My debate opponent responded with this

    “Bacon is delicious. Bacon gets its flavor from fat. Pure bacon fat is even more delicious than regular bacon.


    I’m trying to figure out what the different process of logic we’re using. Can someone break down his response?


    I don’t follow? What part of your post supports or denies your claim? Your opponent claims bacon is delicious, states that bacon gets it’s flavor from fat and then surmises that the fat alone must be better then bacon as a whole. I would assume he does not eat bacon fat in lieu of actual bacon but believes he has shown logic to be capable of absurdity. His inference seems true but his premise is false. Bacon gets some of its flavor from fat. Bacon fat is one reason that bacon is delicious. Logic!

    I’m no expert here



    osgood401 is, I believe, essentially correct. Your interlocutor seems to be arguing that the flavour of bacon comes exclusively from fat so that we should just leave the bacon to one side and concentrate on the fat. Hmmmm?

    What exactly is the argument here? More to the point, how does it relate to what you wrote?


Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.