The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ReformedArsenal
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Debate arguments that contain unnecessary repetitions should be considered null and void

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
ReformedArsenal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,679 times Debate No: 18778
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

The English language contains various different terms, phrases, idioms, expressions and sayings that, to all intents and purposes, repeat themselves.

First and foremost among these, alphabetically-speaking, is the legal term ‘assault and battery'. The two nouns in this saying have broadly the same meaning - "assault": a violent physical attack; and "battery": the act of battering or beating. (1) Is it really necessary to employ such repetition in order to maintain law and order?

Other similar phrases include:

Beck and call
Cease and desist
Kith and kin
Peace and quiet
Rack and ruin
Safe and sound
Spick and span
Vim and vigour

Of course, people should be free to express themselves without let or hindrance, but the needless duplication of words is irritating and only serves to add to life's trials and tribulations. That's why I duly assert that debate arguments that contain unnecessary repetitions should be considered null and void.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
ReformedArsenal

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for posting this debate. His humor and candor is refreshing and I look forward to an enjoyable exchange.

As Con of this argument, I do not need to prove the converse of the resolution to be true, I must only fulfill one of the following conditions.

A) My opponent's argument does not prove the resolution true.
B) The resolution cannot logically be true, and therefore is false.

I shall be approaching option B as my path to victory.

My opponent argues that debate arguments that contain repetitious phrases should be excluded or considered false. He then gives several examples of such phrases.

However, the resolution itself, as well as much of my opponent's argument, utilizes these phrases. Therefore, if my opponent were to prove the resolution true, he would actually be proving the resolution false. The resolution is therefore nonsensical, and cannot be logically true.

Con therefore wins this debate as it is impossible to prove the resolution true (Pro's burden).
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank ReformedArsenal for accepting this debate and for posting the following argument:

"…the resolution itself, as well as much of my opponent's argument, utilizes these phrases. Therefore, if my opponent were to prove the resolution true, he would actually be proving the resolution false. The resolution is therefore nonsensical, and cannot be logically true."

This rebuttal prompted me to review my opening argument and, in so doing, I was dismayed to discover that I had, indeed, unwittingly employed repetitious phrases on an apparently wholesale basis. For the irritation that this must have caused the voters I can only apologise and ask that they dismiss my first round argument entirely and do not consider it at all when they cast their votes.

I was also prompted to carefully examine my opponent's argument and I noted that he scrupulously avoided using any repetitious phrases. I would invite the voters to conclude that this is a tacit admission on my opponent's behalf that debate arguments that contain unnecessary repetition should be negated.

Thank you.
ReformedArsenal

Con

"For the irritation that this must have caused the voters I can only apologise and ask that they dismiss my first round argument entirely and do not consider it at all when they cast their votes."

My opponent has asked that you do not consider his first round. In the second rounnd, he has only added one argument.

"I would invite the voters to conclude that this is a tacit admission on my opponent's behalf that debate arguments that contain unnecessary repetition should be negated."

I am happy to clear up this confusion, and simply state to you that this is not admission on my behalf that arguments with unnecessary repetition should be negated. I simply find them annoying, and considering that this site has a character limits I avoid them. I do not however feel that they are invalid arguments.

As such, my opponent has made no argument at all (since his last one was based on a faulty assumption that has now been revealed). I however have shown that the resolution cannot be proven true, and therefore Pro cannot possibly win. I urge you, therefore, to vote for Con in this debate.

Thank you to Brian for his candor and respect in this debate. It was a refreshing change.
Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
"Free and clear," comes from when the Norman English court repeated words in both languages so both the French and the British would understand.
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
I lol'ed at the resolution.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
drafterman,

I don't have to prove the resolution false... I only have to prove it not to be true (or impossible to be true).

I did so.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
JCMT, the resolution is essentially equivalent of the paradox "This statement is false." If it is, it isn't; if it isn't, it is.

If Con disproves the resolution by referring to the "null and void" then he proves the resolution because it is the principle introduced in the resolution that he would be using.

However, if Con disproves the resolution showing that Pro's argument is valid, even if it uses redundant phrases, then he also proves the resolution because he has shown Pro's argument to be valid.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 5 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
I figured the term "null and void" was intentionally inserted into the debate. :P
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Nah - cause if Con shows that they are not null and void, he's negated your resolution anyway, so the substance of your argument wouldn't matter.
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
Or visa-versa, JCMT, that was my cunning plan!
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I'd just like to point out that Pro can't possibly win. Because if he makes the case that "unnecessary repetitions are NULL and VOID" successfully, he will have nullified and voided his own argument, resulting in a default win for Con.
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
As for my opponent...I'm left scratching my head, but no doubt I'll be able to employ one of my tried and tested debate techniques to come up with an adequate response!
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
Thanks for reading, and also for your kind and enlightening comment Jibby_page.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
brian_egglestonReformedArsenalTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was clever and entertaining but Con was more persuasive.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
brian_egglestonReformedArsenalTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: As usual, I would give a point of conduct for Brian's refreshing humor, though I must say that it wasn't necessarily as good as his other debates. Moreover, Con did show that by including a list of "unnecessary repetitions" in his first round, as well as others, Pro essentially lost the debate by creating a hard resolution to prove.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
brian_egglestonReformedArsenalTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Basically a forfeit
Vote Placed by Spritle 5 years ago
Spritle
brian_egglestonReformedArsenalTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro disregarded his first round. Forfeit.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
brian_egglestonReformedArsenalTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "For the irritation that this must have caused the voters I can only apologise and ask that they dismiss my first round argument entirely and do not consider it at all when they cast their votes." Sounds like a forfeit.