quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

your statement example forces nothing

Then you should be able to show that if you accept i) then how ii) does not follow but you can't.  However I do realize that I've cued you up for your usual song-and-dance where you pretend that you've demonstrated something.

my statement

Can't demonstrate anything useful to the conclusion you have stated.  If it could, it would force some related statement.  Since it can not force any related statement it can not advance the argument (or your argument is far, far, far, far, far, far weaker than you seem to assert it is.

your graduation from 2nd law lawyer to kindergarten english master happened very suddenly

Not really.  I suppose I could comment about how you don't actually read my posts but I think that's pretty much obvious now.  I've commented on how bad your English is for ages.  So why not let me in on why you post here with your fake moustache?

[profitis]

quit fooling and just launch the debate @sarkeizen.all you have to do is answer step 1 for us.your holding us(me and the audience)...up.

[sarkeizen]

quit fooling and just launch the debate

Uh...I thought you said that textbooks were enough to prove, unquestionably that one can create a device which can run an ipod-like device forever. I disagree with this point, I think it's very likely untrue and nowhere near as clear as you are implying.

Haven't you just conceded my point? I mean...

You have said that no textbook actually states this clearly...your words.
You have said that you can't make a logical argument purely on the basis of what is described in textbooks.
You have said that it's absolutely essential that I fulfill some weird fantasy of yours where I'm in a classroom.
You have said that it absolutely requires *debate* - so it's *debatable* that you can create such a device.

So in addition to textbooks you need to debate it, so your argument is much weaker than you implied.  If it is ESSENTIAL to have a debate, then again textbooks are not sufficient. 

So again.  You have conceded my point.

all you have to do is answer step 1

Is step 1 a question? It wasn't phrased as a question.  If your English was better...

for us.your holding us(me and the audience)...up.

Nope.  It seems pretty clear that you have conceded my point.  Why would we need to discuss "step 1" if it's clear that it's useless.

[profitis]

step 1 doesnt require debate.it requires common sense.since you refuse to use common sense in the first step,how do we know if you are competent enough to cognize reality @sarkeizen.in other words,step 1 is a test for your sanity @sarkeizen.e.g. i can tell an insane person,'air is seethrough'and then risk a barrage of attacks on insane premises of argument.im not prepared to work here for nothing @sarkeizen.in other words im not prepared to tell you how a hydrogen concentration cell works and then be blasted halfway on my stupidity for building and testing such a device,and then be chased off the thread over such trivialities.thus step 1 is crucial to determine your sanity and competency beforehand @sarkeizen. see now?oh,and step 1 is a question.a yes or no question.you couldnt see that?speaking of cognisense..

[sarkeizen]

step 1 doesnt require debate.

And yet you said...

step 1 is answered and then debated

Apparently step 1 does require debate....let me know when you figure out what you are saying.

it requires common sense.since you refuse to use common sense

I simply want to use logic, you do not.   Your argument appears to be that we only need textbooks to determine that we can construct a device which will run something like an ipod FOREVER.  If you have changed your argument, please let me know.

If that is your argument then, you really only have a few options:

i) A textbook will clearly say this or
ii)  It will be an unavoidable inference from what textbooks do say

If it isn't i) then it must be ii) because if it isn't ii) then you need more than textbooks.  If you need more than textbooks then your argument is false.  With me so far?

You have admitted that i) is not the case and now you say that ii) is only true if I play out some weird fantasy of yours.  Since your weird fantasy is not part of any textbook then ii) is *avoidable* therefore ii) can not be true.

So either provide an argument that is unavoidable OR admit that you have lost.  It's likely the later but I don't really expect you be able to see that.

im not prepared to work here for nothing

Don't worry, you're not prepared to work at all.  If you were, you would have provided a textbook cite which you seemed to imply was easy to find.  So if you refuse to do something easy.  It's reasonable to believe that you are not willing to do any work.

step 1 is crucial to determine your sanity and competency beforehand

Either step 1 is an argument or it's irrelevant.  If it's part of your argument then it forces something.  That's a definition you understood at the beginning.  So come back when you can make something that complies with the requirement you agreed on.  If you want this to become yet another thing you lied about...well that's ok too.

and step 1 is a question.a yes or no question.

It wasn't phrased like one.  Please use English and phrase it like one.