how can step 1 force anything

i) Socrates is a man; all men are mortal
ii) Socrates is mortal.

Step i) forces step ii).

the way you make it out is as if i have to force you to answer before a conclusion can be forced .youre hardly playing your own game fair by refusing to participate in it

No I'm being perfectly fair.  Asking someone to pretend something true is false isn't fair.  Oh hey...that's you.

Putting it in baby-talk for you:  If step 1 is necessary but not NECESSARILY TRUE then your argument goes nowhere. 

and seriously,must you always deflect attention away from your incompetency onto my english when you feel cornered?

Actually I talk about your horrible English when I'm cornered and when I'm not.  When I'm hungry and when I'm not.  When I'm happy and when I'm not.  See I pretty much think anytime is a good time to talk about someone who has such deliberately ridiculous language.   Besides why are you so defensive about it?  I simply asked why are you affecting such poor language?  One would think if one wants to be understood one would make an effort to be clear.  You clearly are making an effort to be unclear.

superman is a man.not all men are mortal.socrates is a man.socrates may not be mortal. you see,i unforced your conclusion

Nope.  Are you really not getting it, or is this just more trolling?

My statement i) FORCES statement ii).  That is *given* i) then ii) is necessary and unavoidable.  Your agreement in i) is irrelevant (at this point).  However in your very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very stupid case.  There are so many potential outcomes that your statement i) forces nothing.  Hence even if I were to agree it demonstrates nothing.

Hence it's not a formal logical argument.  So regardless of what it's based on it can't make your point.   So if your "step 1" is NECESSARY then your argument is invalid.

Try again troll-boy. Please attempt to be less stupid.

My english is fine

I was just asking an honest question.  Why do you deliberately make your English so very poor?  It's like being in a meeting with someone wearing a fake moustache.  Everyone knows it's fake and makes the wearer look stupid.  I just thought it would be an interesting story.

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?

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.

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.

@sarkeizen.do you think it is logical for a science teacher to ask a student to build a hydrogen concentration cell and a copper concentration cell for exams..

See I knew you were faking all the lousy English.  Why bother?  Do you really like wearing the fake moustache so much?

Anyway...If what you wrote is step 1 and it forces nothing, then it's not a formal logical argument.  You agreed to this remember?  I can show you where you said that you would create a series of steps where each one FORCES the next.

If it forces something, you should be able to say what it forces.  However since you can't this seems just another way you are attempting to avoid the question at hand.

@sarkeizen.it forces your COMPETENCY

You said yourself, that it can be answered yes or no and that from there the answer is debated.  Right?
Any question which can be answered in both directions can not force anything.  That is the definition of "force" that only one outcome is possible.  So again, you are wrong. 

.it forces our ability to determine your ability to understand what is about to be quoted

i) A cite is what is requested, not a quote.  There are at least twenty posts on that subject alone.  About three give you an example of how to do it and explain what makes it necessary.

ii) If only one question was necessary to absolutely determine someones ability to read an electrochemistry text with 100% accuracy (0 false positives and 0 false negatives) then there of course would be some published research on this subject (how would you determine this otherwise?).   So where is it?  So while you may like to *pretend* that this is true.  Clearly it's not 100% true (according to you only 99.9% of scientists would agree) hence it can not force anything.  Anything less than 100% is not forcing.

iii) We both know you have no intention of citing anything.  You have had about a hundred opportunities to do so and you haven't.  The way you could prove me wrong is by actually citing something relevant.

e.g. 'ducks lay eggs in winter'directly from a textbook then you go and tell me that that is insufficient as proof.

Like a lot of things it would depend on what is actually meant - which is why a cite is needed.  Many, if not all ducks lay eggs when it is warm.  So the question would be one of what is meant by "winter" - i.e. time of year or "in the winter in the wild" or "in the winter in this part of the world" and what is meant by "ducks" i.e. "All ducks", "some ducks" and what is meant by "lay" i.e. "can lay", "do lay".

However with a cite it might be possible to determine which of those things is meant.

Anyway, since you agree that nothing is forced by this statement (your own words say this exact thing).  Is there any chance you're going to get off your lazy ass and do some work here?