The Instigator
Stephen_Hawkins
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Critical Literature existed before 'A Critique of Pure Reason'

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,772 times Debate No: 22517
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

The_Fool_on_the_hill : "Critical Literature is way before Critique (not critic) of Pure Reason."

This debate is based on a discussion spawned between myself and The Fool on the Hill.

The debate is as follows:

Critical literature is synonymous with literary criticism, or the criticism and evaluation of literature.

The Critique of pure reason refers to Immanuel Kant's A Critique of Pure Reason. We shall refer to the first edition, circa 1781.

existed refers to the predicate that this is a debate on whether something exists, and therefore on fact, and not whether literary criticism should have existed before Kant's Critique, for example.

PRO has burden of proof. CON has burden of rejoinder.

First round is for acceptance. Disagreements in definitions should be posted in comments section. Acceptance of the debate with no disagreement on definition means we both accept the definitions, and shall not challenge said definitions after the first round.

Furthermore, no squirelling in debate.
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

I disagree with the definition proposed as it is too broad to add, general criticism or evaluation of literature as such are intuitive by reading liturature alone. Secondly I do not consider post-humously back lableing by future generation on to path. E.g. Political science is modern definition. But its gets back labled on to past philosopher such as Plato. In that Plato gets asserted as doing political science because it shares similarities when infact the concept was non-existential at the time.

Critical literature is synonymous with literary criticism. aka Critical theory. I accept this definition.



Debate Round No. 1
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

As my opponent wishes to shorten the debate (as stated in comments and private message), we'll cancel this round in order to address any maladies. The first malady is: "I disagree with the definition proposed as it is too broad to add, general criticism or evaluation of literature as such are intuitive by reading liturature alone". This does not explicitly refer to which definition is being questioned. I request that this is made explicit to be clearer.

Further, I accept my opponent's "back-labelling" embargo, however remind him that if something is accepted as a criticism in its own time, then it is classed as a definition in its own time.

Finally, I am glad my opponent accepts the definition of critical literature, and so we can move on from this point.
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

Modern critical theory arose from a trajectory extending from the antipositivist sociology--

This version of "critical" theory derives from Kant's (18th-century) and Marx's (19th Century) use of the term "critique", as in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason For Kant's transcendental idealism, "critique" means examining and establishing the limits of the validity of a faculty, type, or body of knowledge, especially through accounting for the limitations imposed by the fundamental, irreducible concepts in use in that knowledge system.

The second meaning of critical theory is the theory used in literary criticism and in the analysis and understanding of literature. This is discussed in greater detail under literary theory.

Literary scholars first used this term in the 1960s and 1970s, and the term has only come into broad use since the 1980s, especially as theory used in literary studies has increasingly been influenced by European philosophy

http://en.wikipedia.org...

First I would like you to remind you that my claim to a overbroad definiton is a logical fallacy. Fallacy of definition

THe Over-broad definition fallacy can be reviewed at the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org...

It is when somebody body intentionally defines something so broad to avoid there being a clear distinction.

The Fool: We only need simply to look back at my back labeling example to clarify exactly what is meant criticism here. In that critical theory is specifically a modern conceptualization put forward around the end of the 19th century in which the type of criticism is particularly that of Kantian critical philosophy. I may be wrong but I think it’s fair to say that partner has put his foot in his mouth and is going to have to rely on semantic ambiguity. As responsible philosophers the aim is to define in the direction of clarity as we are both noble in the pursuit of knowledge and not deception.

Pro: Further, I accept my opponent's "back-labelling" embargo, however remind him that if something is accepted as a criticism in its own time, then it is classed as a definition in its own time.

The Fool: mind you my partner is already attempting to relativize the definition, as to make it ambiguous to meaning. can you think of any debate where opponent says that the meaning of the definition used is constantly changing depending on exactly which time we are refering to within a debate. Very slippery this one. Another sophism to point out is the use of the word ‘embargo’ which is a Red herring to give the appearance that I am being excessively enforcing in some way. As an embargo blocks trade it has an intentional negative connotation.

Sophism are logical fallacies or irrational techniques of persuasion, such language plays a big part in manipulation of the audience and it is something to look out for by any critical thinker. Even critical thinking is based of critical philosophy. Expect nothing more than lexical semantic games in the next rounds.


Debate Round No. 2
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

Before making my argument, I wish to remind the readers that in R2 it was stated that "as my opponent wishes to shorten the debate (as stated in comments and private message), we'll cancel this round in order to address any maladies." In response, my opponent posted his own argument. Therefore, it is only reasonable to conclude that these maladies have been conceded, and the definition's disagreements dropped. The argument shall continue.


Firstly, I accept that the definition of a criticism shall become atemporal, and, as my opponent seems to not enjoy suggest a definition, I expect that he is referring to the definition that we accepted in R1 - "Critical literature is synonymous with literary criticism, or the criticism and evaluation of literature." of which my opponent stated "I accept this definition", explicitly remarking "
Critical literature is synonymous with literary criticism". Therefore, any work which is seen as "the critcism and evaluation of literature" before 1781 proves my case.

Following on from this, I shall make my own argument first. Well, I say arguments, I just have to provide examples of cases where literary criticism exists before 1781, the time of writing of A Critique of Pure Reason.

Examples:

Discorso in Difesa Della Commedia Della Divino Poeta Dante (
The Discourse in Defense of the Comedy of the Divine Poet Dante) is a defence (or addressal) of Dante's Divine Comedy's criticism, and evaluates the strength of the work.

Anti-Machiavel in 1739 was a direct response which criticises The Prince. This is a "criticism and evaluation of literature".

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com...;In defense of the Fool by Gaunilo is a direct response to evaluate and criticise Proslogian.


Furthermore, an analysis from 1726 of Shakespeare's work (
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu...) directly states he is criticising Shakespeare's work.

The following is a direct list of criticisms of Shaksepare's work and their date (
http://pages.unibas.ch...)

Ascham, Roger. The Scholemaster, 1570 [http://darkwing.uoregon.edu...]

Carew, Richard. The Excellency of the English Tongue, 1595-6 [http://www.library.utoronto.ca...]

Gascoigne, George. Certayne Notes of Instruction, 1575, in complete works: [http://leehrsn.stormloader.com...]

Harrison, William. Harrison's Description of England in Shakespeare's Youth (1575) ed. Furnivall, Frederick (1877). [http://web.archive.org...*/http://leehrsn.50megs.com...] (May 2002)

Lodge, Thomas. A Defense of Poetry, 1579: Thomas Lodge page [http://www.accd.edu...]

Meres, Francis. Palladis Tamia, 1598; Comments on Shakespeare in Palladis Tamia [http://shakespeare.palomar.edu...]

Nashe, Thomas. Anatomie of Absurdity, 1589 [http://www.luminarium.org...]

Puttenham, George, The Arte of English Poesie, 1589 [http://www.library.utoronto.ca...]

Sidney, Sir Philip An Apologie for Poetrie, 1583/95 permission needed: [http://www-vms.uoregon.edu...]
Sidney page [http://www.accd.edu...]


I could probably continue providing evidence and citation, but the disagreement lies elsewhere.


The hypocrisy of the fool, and the power of the squirrel.

My opponent criticises me for using "lexical semantic games" (good to see you learnt a new word, but lexical means semantic; you've said the equivalent of a blue blue sky) although I haven't spoken yet, but then defines critical literature as meaning critical theory: this is acceptable. However, critical literature (or literary criticism) has been defined in R1 as 'the criticism and evaluation of literature'. This means one of two things:

Either critical theory is a red herring, and irrelevant to the discussion (unlikely)
or the more likely:
My opponent is attempting to have "distort...the definition [of the word 'critical literature'] to enable a team to argue a pre-prepared argument that it wishes to debate regardless of the motion actually set", also known as squirelling (http://www.schoolsdebate.com...).

Squirreling is against the rules, as stated clearly in R1: "Furthermore, no squirelling in debate".

Therefore, my opponent has broken agreed upon rules.

Furthermore, even if we accept this as not squirelling, then it is an irrelevancy. The debate is about Critical literature, or literary criticism, as per the title of the debate and R1 definitions respectively. My opponnent is attempting to construct a red herring in order to debate critical theory, not critical literature. The difference between the my definition and the first definition is blatant and large enough to show that critical theory is an irrelevancy to a debate. The second definition is expressed in greater detail in the link provided:

"This form of critical theory is not necessarily oriented toward radical social change or even toward the analysis of society, but instead focuses on the analysis of texts. Literary scholars first used this term in the 1960s and 1970s, and the term has only come into broad use since the 1980s, especially as theory used in literary studies has increasingly been influenced by European philosophy and social theory."

This shows that this is just one form of critical theory, and, if critical theory is to remain synonymous with literary criticism, then just a small part of literary criticism. Therefore, there are other types of criticism which can exist. My opponent tries to combat this by saying I am being overly broad with my definitions, however these definitions are those accepted in round one, and I explicitly stated "Acceptance of the debate with no disagreement on definition means we both accept the definitions, and shall not challenge said definitions after the first round." My opponent did not challenge my definition to the phrase "critical literature", so he is trying to break agreed upon rules.

Finally, although this is not relevant to any argument, my opponent stated explicitly that one cannot use "back labelling", yet uses a "neo-marxist examination" (http://en.wikipedia.org...) to prove his argument. This would then be a case of "back labelling", as Kant certainly did not refer to himself as a Neo-Marxist. I'm not sure why, but it's probbly got something to do with Neo-Marxism being a fair few years after Kant died.

To conclude, there are many examples of literary criticism prior to 1781. My opponent is guilty of breaking the rules by squirelling definitions. Even if we ignore his squirelling, we are left with his definition being a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion, or he is discussing only a specific part of critical literature, and I am talking about different parts. Finally, he has, in fact, broken his own rules through "back-labelling" definitions, or post-humously labelling definitions.


Finally, I urge that when judging on conduct one takes into consideration the repeated unjustified ad hom on myself and not my argument. Evidence as follows:

"Expect nothing more than lexical semantic games in the next rounds."

The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con


Kick off!


Before I begin this round, let’s just think for a moment about what Pro argument amounts too:


Pro; ’Since, I did not define my own definition clearly Con can’t win this debate.” WTF!!??, does he take us for fools? ;) Imagine if we take such arguments seriously, that means every time the instigator defines a subject they can later turn around and say he meant his definition ambiguously therefore the Challenger can’t win. This makes it impossible for the challenger to ever win at all. Just think about how unreasonable this suggestion is.


That is the whole function of the Over-broad definition fallacy. It is there to prevent such scandal. Pro has made a fatal error. The rest of these rounds waste my time, your time, and Pro’s own time. Nobody wants to neither read nor write four rounds of semantics. There is no virtue in such debates and they prove nothing about reality in the end. It should be common ethics to assume that nobody wants to play semantic games. We shouldn’t have to write that down ‘no semantic games’ every time. People who lower the DDO experience with such games need to be held responsible.



Your very private message


Pro claims that the Fool said that we should drop a round in a private message. The Fool said no such things. He said, “I really don’t want to go through four rounds or this.” As in, as if you are going to drag us all the way out for four rounds just to save a little face. The rest was his and only his idea. Strawman fallacy



The discussion


Pro stated in acceptance round that, “This debate is based on a discussion spawned between myself and The Fool on the Hill.”


This discussion is clearly observable in the philosophy Forum, which was sparked from a disagreement of post-modernism. My claim was as about the role critical theory plays in post-modernism. In which there is no ambiguity in the sense I was referring to. Thus pro can’t in the second round declare it as more ambiguous then what was meant originally, it was my own reference, not his. And a speaker could never be wrong their own meaning. Even if we use the improper language the meaning intended is always the meaning of the speaker. The other is the interpreter, and they may or may not interpret the meaning of the speaker correctly.


More definition Problems


Even if we take semantic games seriously, His definition is still a fallacy why? Because it shares the same name with each of its definitions, this makes it a circular definition. This is another definition fallacy,



for (critical literature) as (literary criticism) tells us nothing of about what critical literature is.


E.g. if a child ask you ‘what is critical literature’ and you give pro’s definition “literary criticism“ The child would be baffled for you have not indicated at all what they heck it means.


Another example:


Let’s say The Fool playing a game that you never heard of and he says it’s called “fenacal chackel’ and you ask him what that means and he responds well its ‘chackel fenacal’ we would all agree that he is being quite Foolish here. Right? But this is the exact nature of Pro Definition. It a nonsense definition, as it’s merely restates the words in a difference order.



“It is a mark of prudence never to place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once.” Rene Descartes


Is pro being honest with us?


For pros say that, I said "I accept this definition", explicitly remarking "Critical literature is synonymous with literary criticism".


But I really said: ‘Critical literature is synonymous with literary criticism. Aka Critical theory. I accept this definition.’ Pro committed a Strawman Fallacy.


Notice how Pro actually cut out the most important part or my agreement and then shamelessly tried to sell it back to us. ‘Aka Critical Theory!!’ this is what takes the definition out of circularity. For critical theory is the particular conceptualization at hand. Even though it has critical in the definition it has been specifically accounted for by referring to that of the Critique of Pure Reason.


“critique" means examining and establishing the limits of the validity of a faculty, type, or body of knowledge, especially through accounting for the limitations imposed by the fundamental, irreducible concepts in use in that knowledge system.”


As Descartes implies it is not just important to see how many argument people get right but also how many fallacious attempts were made. If somebody is proud of their argument such tactics are not needed, because the logical proof is good enough.



Bad sources are worst then No sources


One of the problems I notice is DDO is the amount of bad sources. Bad sources with do not support the argument in the end are Red Herrings. They give and impression to the reader that the speaker is being supported when they in fact they misinform the audience. Pro has many sources such about the use of the term critical literature in the over- broad sense. But what he doesn’t realise is that most of his sources are base from other languages, that is the term has been used to back label a translation from another language which may not have the same meaning, now. What is worse most of them don’t go to anywhere. There is about three that work. And if you click the necessary component you will see that most of the dates are much more recent then he has written. That is Pro has actually put fake dates beside the links:


Please take a moment to examine them yourself:



Squirrels


The Fool: I have no doubt that Pro is talking about something when he refers to squirrels, I have no idea what, but I think that would have been important to define in the first round. His source is some obscure debate society in Australia. Maybe they have a lot of squirrels there? Red Herring fallacy



Anything is Possible with the Fool


The Fool: Remember Pro is trying his best to squiggle a semantic win. He has made it clear that this is his goal. He is not even denying it and he then makes this claim:


Pro claims: My opponent is attempting to have "distort...the definition [of the word 'critical literature']


The Fool: yeah that right, I have mentioned it clearly in my first round. Strawman fallacy. Secondly pro has two definition fallacies in one definition already, if what Pro is saying is true it would violate the purpose of our previous discussion. Remember Pro is saying that while is whole purpose is too trick me into semantics win in the first place. Lol. Red Herring fallacy


When we get desperate!


Pro: ‘This shows that this is just one form of critical theory, and, if critical theory is to remain synonymous with literary criticism, then just a small part of literary criticism.


The Fool: Pro is attempting to get rid of critical theory as part of the definition(sorry my distortion of my own claim) but now he is trying to use it. Lol Contradiction fallacy


Pro: if critical theory is to remain synonymous with literary criticism, then just a small part of literary criticism.


The Fool: it doesn’t say that is not related to the critical theory. Bold assertion fallacy. Secondly it’s an appeal to ambiguity fallacy.


Pro: Finally, although this is not relevant to any argument. Red Herring fallacy.


Pro: One cannot use "back labelling", yet uses a "neo-marxist examination


Vs.


The Fool: "critical" theory derives from Kant's (18th-century) and Marx's (19th Century) use of the term "critique", This is a clear and obvious Strawman fallacy


Well I am running out of refuting space, the Fool will be back again to finish this off. I expect this to be a desperation round, but judge for yourself. Vote Fool!!


Debate Round No. 3
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

Definitions

My opponent seems to be focused on this issue, so let's resolve it using what has been said, as opposed to misrepresenting others. My opponent did not offer an alternative definition or an attempt to resolve any problems. Nor did he make clear his own disagreement in R1, as per the rules of debate & precedence, then decides to continue with a semantic argument.

Further, my opponent states that he wants to avoid a semantics game through the Over-Broad definition fallacy. However, if one scrolls down the page even slightly, one will notice the second fallacy: the over-narrow definition fallacy. My opponent is defining the word literary criticism to refer to only Neo-Marxist theories. This case of definition would mean that the debate would be unwinnable for myself, as the definition of the word explicitly states it is post-Kant to begin with. This is a blatantly too specific definition, and moreover is squirreling.

My opponent also states that Squirelling is a specifically obscure rule. However, he seems to concede that he has broken this rule, yet it's OK because "it's obscure" from Australia. Moreoever, I'm confused how the World School Debating hampionship is in Australia only, I can only imagine he read the author's based in New Zealand and thought that's in Australia, but still. It's jargon used in the WSDC and Parliamentary Debates, as well as ESU Mace standard debates. (http://en.wikipedia.org...(debate) It's definition is clear and accessible, and the rule was unchallenged, expressing acceptance. Therefore, this point still stands, and my opponent's attempt to go down the tangent of obscurity should be ignored.

Furthermore, I contend that my definition is not overly broad, but rather fits the definition of what literary criticism is.
Evidence as follows:

Literary criticism is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Literary criticism is the evaluation, analysis, description, or interpretation of literary works. (http://www.ipl.org...)
The art or practice of judging and commenting on the qualities and character of literary works (http://oxforddictionaries.com...)
criticism: a written evaluation of a work of literature
(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...)
Literary criticism is an interpretive strategy that focuses on the particularly literary qualities of a text. It is grounded in the understanding that a text should be read and interpreted using the categories appropriate to its genre. (http://www.religion.emory.edu...)
Literary criticism -comments and analysis written about a poem, play, short story, novel, or book. For example, you might be searching for books or articles written about Huckleberry Finn. (http://www.lib.ua.edu...)
The analysis and judgment of works of literature. (http://www.smjuhsd.k12.ca.us...)

The Private Message

My opponent states that he said "I really don't want to go through four rounds of this". However, his statement (as observable here http://tinypic.com...), he stated "I am not going through four rounds of this". The use of imperative shows explicitly he was not reluctant but willing, but in actuality was defiant and stubborn on this point (and continues through the pm). Again, my case is being misrepresented.

The circular definitions

Ignoring the general discussion on the endless circle of definitions, I made it clear in the first round that critical literature is synonymous with literary criticism. I then stated literary criticism is defined as "the criticism and evaluation of literature". My opponent states earlier that this definition is "over-broad definitionf fallacy", but here contradicts himself by clearly stating that I have never given a definition at all.

To use my opponent's example, I would have defined fenacal chackel as "synonymous to chackel fenacal, that is, jumping up and down repeatedly", giving a very clear definition. The claim that I have not given a definition is clearly an attempt to clutch at straws to make his own case. I accept that, if one provides a definition simply by making things synonymous with one another, then one has not defined something, which leads onto the next point.

More attempts to define Critical Theory as the debate

Firstly, let's make this very clear:

One may apply the neo-marxist Critical theory to literature to evaluate and criticse the literature. This makes it a type of literary criticism. Further, one may apply Queer theory to literature to evaluate and criticse the literature. This makes it a type of literary criticism. One may apply Aristotle's Poetics to literature to evaluate and criticse the literature. This makes it a type of literary criticism. To say that if it's not Critical theory, then it's not literary criticism is application of the following logic:

I have stabbed someone with a dagger. As I am not using a sword, I must have not been using a weapon, and therefore I did not stab someone. Or, as ¬P, then ¬Q, when P & Q are independent of each other. Or, as I am not using critical theory, I am not using Aristotlean criticism.

However, I am going to try and solve this even further in to the discussion. I'm going to now try and show, even if we ignore the illogical nature of the beginning of the argument, then we still have to conclude that literary criticism existed before 1781. So, let's delve into the theoretical level of the Fool's logic for a moment. Literary criticism is critical theory. In the same way as a shape with exactly three sides is a triangle. Therefore, critical theory is literary criticism, just as a triangle is a shape with exactly three sides. As such, my opponent is accepting that literary criticism is synonymous to critical theory, so if I find any examples of literary criticism, then my argument still stands.

In short, according to my opponent, literary criticism is critical theory. Therefore, critical theory is literary criticism. Therefore, any examples of literary criticism is examples of critical theory.

To summarise:

My definition of literary criticism is not overly broad. My opponent's definition of literary criticism is overly narrow. My opponent has conceded he has broken rules involved in R1 which were accepted, and further still broken rules anyway. My opponent is criticising me of making a semantics game, but refuses to accept even the most basic and world-accepted definitions, and finally, even when we accept his unsubstantiated and just plain wrong definitions, we still see his case is flawed.

Just as a final note, however, I wish to bring some things up:

As we are not allowed to backlog, I ask my opponent to bring up where critical theory is referred to by Marx or Kant, and how the use of the term critique being firstly found in Kant and Marx.

My opponent claims that my dating of books is wrong: I request him to justify this.

My opponent states critical theory takes us out of the circle. But let me point out that the circle was not there to begin with. What's critical literature? Literary criticism. What's literary criticism? It's the criticism and evaluation of literature. Now, if we state that " criticism and evaluation of literature" is circularly relating back to Critical literature, then we have to accept that my opponent's definition simply refers back to "This version of "critical" theory..." to critical literature.

In short, my opponent has made multiple unjustified claims, or claims that are purely wrong, as well as all of the other faults in the argumentation. In short, my opponent has been unable to make a strong refutation of my claims, and I urge a vote PRO.
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con


The Finishing


As was stated Hawking has mentioned in the first round, this debate is based from an discussion that we had in the forum it was related to Post-modernism, in which The Hawk, was getting Shocked by the Fool. It was clear that he had not studying the material related to the discussion. So after much frustration he challenges The Fool to this debate as a spiteful, attempt to get a semantic win rather than an honest debate in relation to our discussion. It is easy to see just by the fact that it makes no sense, to even having such a trivial debate in the first place. If I noticed he was doing this and especially four of it I wouldn’t have accepted it at all. I am grateful for the voters who actually stayed and read it all.


Is it over yet?


Hawkings: ‘My opponent seems to be focused on this issue, so let's resolve it using what has been said, as opposed to misrepresenting others.’


The Fool: Did I do it or not, its plainly open for all to see. The word “seems” is and intentional attempt to distort and not only that I have been pushing for clarity not ambiguity.2X Red Herring fallacy.


One of the ways to tell the integrity of my debates is that I “QUOTE” exactly that I am refuting. So is it clear what I am referring to and it avoids the opponent’s ability to justly charge you with Strawman fallacies. I avoid words like perhaps, appealingly or seems, maybe (the opponent). The idea is that if something is true of an opponent just quote it, rather than only persuading the audience with such words. Just be open and clear.


Are you serious?


Hawking’s: ‘My opponent did not offer an alternative definition or an attempt to resolve any problems.’


The Fool: !!!!!!!?????! Note the direct admission, and later he also says that it wasn’t circular or opaque. Also note the Contradiction.


“The Fool: I disagree with the definition proposed as it is too broad to add, general criticism or evaluation of literature as such are intuitive by reading literature alone”


“Critical literature is synonymous with literary criticism. AKA Critical theory. I accept this definition.”


Remember Hawking’s has tried to cut out the most important part of section of my quote and definition already and made a failed Strawman attempt with it.


From earlier, before Hawking last Round definition: “critical" theory derives from Kant's (18th-century) and Marx's (19th Century) use of the term "critique", as in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.”critique" means examining and establishing the limits of the validity of a faculty, type,… blah blah blah.



Hawkings: ”{The Fool} did not make clear his own disagreement in R1, as per the rules of debate & precedence, then decides to continue with a semantic argument.”


The Fool: remember Hawking is deliberately attempting a semantic win, I have mentioned it over and over and he doesn’t deny it one bit. And then he is accusing The Fool of it..!!!??????? Red Herring fallacy. Then he says shamlessly:


Stephen Hawkings:, my opponent states that he wants to avoid a semantics game through the Over-Broad definition fallacy.


The Fool: What are you talking about through the Over-broad fallacy!! Red herring fallacy


Awww That is sad! Why?


Pro is suggesting that the definition I mentioned is narrow, mind you he is just learning these concepts as we speak, as I think he was Shock again by my mention of the over-broad fallacy. Defining is an art, and the purpose of definition in debate is having it in way that makes it possible for rational inquiry. That is to make it so that it’s worth debating about. This is inherent in The Principle of Charity, a philosophers ethic that I have sent Hawking on at least three occasions, before the debate but he continues to feel okay with this deceptive dialectic discussion and debate. This part of the principle is to take word to mean the most likely sense that the speaker is intending. The Hawk intentionally violated that rule went for sneaky victory but he got FOOLED!



Because I like The Fool!


My opponent is defining the word literary criticism to refer to only Neo-Marxist theories.


The Fool: I have already demonstrated how Neo-Marxist, is not related at all. WTF is he talking about!? Remember when I said desperation. This I false. Strawman Fallacy



So what, Squirrels like Nuts


The Fool is a Fool but a Nut is Nut, for a fool is foolish but a nut is just plain ridiculous.


Hawkings: “My opponent also states that Squirrelling is a specifically obscure rule. “


The Fool: Negative, I said it was an obscure source and that you should have defined the rule in the first round because it is not that common enough to us at DDO. Strawman Fallacy


Hawking: “However, he seems to concede that he has broken this rule,”


The Fool: Firstly I haven’t, whether or not it is seemingly. Strawman Fallacy


Ridiculous:


Hawkings: “It's definition {squirrel} is clear and accessible, and the rule was unchallenged, expressing acceptance. “


The Fool: “That was specifically challenged you just said it yourself.!!!!!?????????? It’s rare that I would say that an opponent is flat out lying, but there is no way for him to hide it,its plainly viable to all. (I don’t even know what to call this?) FABLE Fallacy. Hhmm sound Good? ;)



Nuts have “Mushmind”


Hawkings: Ignoring the general discussion on the endless circle of definitions:


The Fool: why would we do that? lol. It was a fatal argument not a discussion. Red Herring fallacy


Hawking: I contend that my definition is not overly broad, but rather fits the definition:


The Fool: Remember not only was he is deliberate attempting a cheat win. He is attempting to formulize the definition IN THE LAST ROUND! So this is it is a huge matter of justice here. Special Pleading


Stephen Hawkings: To use my opponent's example, I would have defined fenacal chackel as "synonymous to chackel fenacal, that is, jumping up and down repeatedly", giving a very clear definition.


The Fool: I love that game. XD here Steve is hiding, the fact that the word in all Three sections of his definition, which is also not related to our discussion. Red Herring fallacy



This is fit for the Birds


Hawking is complaining that his case is being misrepresented


The Fool: if this is true then he should quote and show a strawman fallacy, But I clearly stated what I meant and none of it says please drop rounds.


"I really don't want to go through four rounds of this"=/= Please drop rounds.


Strawman fallacy


I then stated literary criticism is defined as "the criticism and evaluation of literature".


More attempts to define Critical Theory as the debate


The empty-nesst


The Fool: One important Sophism is when an opponent tries to use language to give an impression that they have demonstrated lots when they have not shown very little at all:


The Hawk: To summarise(First mention)


The Hawk: Just as a final note(Again)


The Hawk: In short (again), my opponent has made multiple unjustified claims, or claims that are purely wrong(again), as well as all(again) of the other faults in the argumentation.


The Fool: Yeah that’s right no impure wrongs here. <(:D)


The Hawk: In short,(again) my opponent has been unable to make a strong refutation(again) of my claims, and I urge a vote PRO.


The Fool: You have been URGED! …………………………..again!!. <(XD)


Super Mega Red Herrring!



It’s a Nut-shell-ter


This debate was been made more mess then its needs to be:


In a nutshell:



  1. The Fool and The Hawk were halving a discussion on post-modernism which is at best 150 old only.

  2. The Hawk got shocked and tried to snivel the Fool into a semantic win for spiteful payback. Obviously we it would be “nutty” to such trivials as evaluating literature existing.

  3. Just reading literature is evaluating literature

  4. .Pro un-expectantly got charged with definition fallacies. (he had never heard of it before)Aka He Got SHOCKED!]

  5. The Fool demonstrated his case!

  6. The rest has been The Fool, blocking Hawking’s desperate attempts to slither around it.


I am sure Stephens Hawking’s is a very smart guy, but at this time and on this debate:


The Hawk got shocked!!!




AGAIN!!





VOTE FOOL!


Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Hmm... I can see how Phaedo would be, and Io, but Phaedrus? I'll have to reread that with this in mind, thanks.
Posted by FourTrouble 5 years ago
FourTrouble
There is a lot of it in Plato, for example in the Republic, Plato discusses how literature represents reality, but because it isn't reality, it is 2-steps removed from the forms, the truth, and therefore should be censored. Phaedrus is famous in literary studies, in its discussion of rhetoric. It could also be considered literary criticism, or at the least, literary theory.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
if anything its the opposite. You havent been able to show anything. Its doesn't help to ask somebody who is less informed then both of us on the issue.

I got the source mark because he has no idea what he was talkiing about. if anything you should get the source marks. lol He even gave you conduct when you purposly were avoiding any honest debate on the actual issue we were talking about. Its not like you even denied and he gave you those marks.

It doesn't follow that non wikapedia sources are better, it depends on the type of definition. Most sources I see on DDO are even worse.

Secondly you know as well as I that your purpose was completly dishonet. Obviously that has nothing to do with are discussion. You not supposed to acually feel good about those things. It means you were not able to actually defend you claim in our discussion. You know as well as I we can vote that the Moon is cheese. And the moon will not be affected. I havent won a single debate, it has nothing to do with my lack of understanding or argument it has to do people not being qualified for such topics,most on here are confused with what logic actually is. Let alone vote on it.

The purpose is to for you to know the different between are actaul arguement. ANd to stoop to this is the proof that you know who was right. Why would you even want to waste time on this nonsense?
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Why not just accept your argument was flawed/unclear/misconstructed? Personally, I am wondering why you got the source marks when only 2 sources usedon your end, both from wikipedia. Voters vote from how they see the debate. I think you need to try and work on your clarity & argumentation, because it's not all there.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
@TUF:
I showed quoted the differences between what I said, and what he said. There is no way around it.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
You suppost feel shame when caught being dishonest. Not argue for it.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
My favourite part of the debate is where the fool simultaneously says we should have banned semantic traps, while arguing semantics and saying that squirrelling (which is a rule to stop semantic traps) should not be in the debate at all. Oh well, new picture time.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Plato?

I know he didn't like poetry, but I personally say it started with Aristotle's Poetics. Can you refer me to which work of Plato you mean?
Posted by FourTrouble 5 years ago
FourTrouble
There is literary criticism dating back to Plato...
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
aww four rounds .. this should have been two rounds.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 5 years ago
FourTrouble
Stephen_HawkinsThe_Fool_on_the_hillTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: There is critical literature before Kant's Critique. Pro lists it, and a quick look at those sources makes it clear who won this debate. The semantic stuff was mostly irrelevant, as whether the narrow or broad definition is used, there is still critical literature before Kant's Critique. As for "back labelling," that is a ridiculous claim on Fool part. People come up with terms for what they were already doing... no problem with that.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
Stephen_HawkinsThe_Fool_on_the_hillTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments go to pro. You both proved your points well, and trying to find a winner was hard for me. I give conduct to pro for well structuring and defining your arguments to the exact particularity. I didn't find that your arguments were stawmen, or fallatic at all. I also Give conduct to pro for the "WTF is he talking about?!" Bit. We want to try and keep it as civilized as possible in a debate round. Also I am giving Con sources based on the lack of them in beginning rounds when pro has BOP