Every argument has not been logically observed. If every argument can be observed logically disputes can settle but since disputes have not settled all arguments cannot be observed so.
Instructors can do so much better with blogs then why don’t they?
Smoking or not smoking is the question. When everything can be justified in some way, does that mean there is no evil?
If you demarcate a boundary between science and non-science by claiming science as anything that can be proven false in principle, how right is your approach? Can dealing negatively ever help?
Why do arguments mislead? How do you keep them on track? If logic can tell between right and wrong, why is it not our main academic syllabus? After all, man wants to know what’s real, isn’t that what the problems of knowing is all about? How doe we know? What do we know?
Don’t you think history moves in the same circle everything else does?