[goaty]

You are correctly speaking.
Argument a = red is a colour            this gets a 1. (true)
Argument b = red is not a colour     this gets a 0. (false)   (Argument a wins.)
so indeed its a predestined victory to hit that table, its kind of more like a congratulations table rather than working out if im true or false as a state.
To know that red is a colour,  I guess you could hit a venn diagram for that one because its so simple!

So a) how do we decide something more involved.   and b) how do we know if we are contradicting or not?

[Freddy]

Just got up, but this hit me, going back to your original example, couldn't we have this:

  AB
  00    -both arguments are incorrect = agreement?
  01    -argument b is correct = disagreement
  10    -argument a is correct = disagreement
  11    -both arguments are correct = agreement

[goaty]

yes.  that is very good way of thinking about it.

and this.

to play basketball good, you must go slow and always miss the basketball ring with the basketball to score.

whats incorrect about that statement,  the fact it was how to play good,  or the description of how to play bad next to it, cause otherwise it could pass as quite good advice.

[yotamarker]

am I the only one that uses the break it down to mini puzzles technique ?

factual argument : this is a monkey, monkeys eat bananas : this type are exact logic patterns

bargaining arguments : can I come over, no Im busy, but …

threat arguments : feminism is cancer
followed by negative outcomes examples of lose,
and positive achievements from cancelling the threat

[goaty]

the computer is supposed to have a disagreement with new values coming into it.  (is this also an argument?)

If it disagrees with whats in it,  its a psychology lesson,  I cant remember what its called...

But this is not to do with what it sees. (unless ur seeing mirages)  Its got to do with conceptual development.