The Instigator
humanright2debate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Defro
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Debate is benefit

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 1 vote the winner is...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 821 times Debate No: 48101
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

humanright2debate

Pro

define of

debate--- discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.

benefit ---an advantage or profit gained from something.
Defro

Con

-Someone mentioned this in the comments:

-You claimed in your title that "Debate is Benefit" which implies they are the same thing.

-You provided definitions of the word "Debate" and "Benefit"

-Your definitions clearly show that they are different things.

***However, I will not be a jerk who uses semantics to my advantage, so I will interepret your claim to be "Debate is beneficial".
________________________________________________________________________________________

Please state your case.
Debate Round No. 1
humanright2debate

Pro

If you agree of the define on my claim,u have to also agree that its not a completed sentence.
based on History of the English language, or law of English.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

if you disagree with the define of my claim which equal
please stat your define of it.

--------------------------------------------
elephant is pink

elephant define- A very large plant-eating mammal with a prehensile trunk, long curved ivory tusks, and large ears, native to Africa and southern Asia. It is the largest living land animal.

pink define - a color varying from light crimson to pale reddish purple.

elephant is grey

elephant define- A very large plant-eating mammal with a prehensile trunk, long curved ivory tusks, and large ears, native to Africa and southern Asia. It is the largest living land animal.

grey define- of a colour intermediate between black and white, as of ashes or lead.

what the difference between elephant is grey or elephant is pink?
Defro

Con

I am not here to debate semantics. I have already said that.
.
.
.
.
.
Please just state your case so that we can actually have a debate.
Debate Round No. 2
humanright2debate

Pro

the case is simple, this is a debate sit, be it semantics or whatever .
you have agreed to take on the debate, if you are not prepare for any debate, please jolly well do not take any of the sit.
Defro

Con

What are you talking about? Of course I'm ready to take the debate! Why else would I accept? I asked you to state your case, yet you have not. I have told you in round 1 that I knew what you meant, yet you refuse to take my offer. If you really wanted to use semantics then fine!


*According to your definition stated in round one, the term "debate" is obviously not equivilent to the term "benefit", therefore you contradicted yourself and proved yourself to be wrong.

*According to your definition of the term "elephant" and "grey", it is also obvious that they are not the same thing.
-->Your definition of the term "elephant" is a large mammal.
-->Your definitions of the terrms "grey" and "pink" are a type of color.
--->An elephant is not a type of color because an elephant is a large mammal.
---->Therefore, "elephant" and "grey" are not the same thing.

*However, it is acceptable to say "The elephant is grey" because the term "grey" IS AN ADJECTIVE. However, the term "benefit" IS A NOUN. Because it is a noun, you cannot use it in the same way that you use an adjective.

*Let me repeat that: YOU CANNOT USE A NOUN LIKE AN ADJECTIVE, excluding certain cases such as when you are using metaphors, which would not be an acceptable title due to the confusion it can cause. Furthermore, you did not specify that you were using a metaphor, therefore, I was under the implication that I had the freedom to interpret your claims however I desire.
________________________________________________________________________________________

I urge you to forget semantics and start the debate already! You have wasted 2 rounds already! If you, the instigator, will not instigate the debate, then I will.

I will begin by providing a link to a debate on DDO. The debate's title is: Do You think I'm Hot. The contents of the debate is people criticizing and hating on each other. This is certainly not beneficial.

http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
humanright2debate

Pro

language is a way of imposing a dichotomistic logic on our world of experience. So each word is an attempt to fix some semantic dividing line that separates what is from what it is not.

As I argued, the world also is dichotomous in this fashion - but in a way that is fundamentally open or vague. And that is why language often feels like it is over-precisifying or reifying the reality. We are lumpers and splitters, and our distinctions are arbitrarily sharp. This is the power of words/symbols/syntax. The word "goat" or "apple" is utterly unambiguous as a symbol string. But the world described by "goat" or "apple" is indeterminate on the microscale and still potentially ambiguous on the classical scale. Rocks are very different from goats, but sheep are pretty similar in all respects. You would have to be able to count the chromosomes to "see" that there had been some genetic divergence in the past.

So we can plonk the word "goat" down on reality and see how it fits. If the word "goat" is defined within a hierarchy of dichotomous distinctions that mirror those of the world, then it will seem to fit pretty well.

People's theories of language divide fairly sharply (funny that!) into those who believe that a word simply labels a sharply differentiated reality and those who believe the opposite, words are simply arbitrary conventions defineable only in their open-ended use.

But I am arguing the middle path, the Peircean metaphysical view, where reality is fundamenally vague, and yet is also organising itself towards definiteness. Words are then fundamentally crisp, and we use them as a machinery of syntax, a hierarchy of constraint, to organise our vague perceptions of the world into concrete definiteness.

So we are imposing a differentiation on our world of experience, but it is not just an arbitrary "meaning is use" interpretation.
Defro

Con

PRO HAS PLAGARISED WITHOUT PROVIDING THE SOURCE!

Pro has copied and pasted a lot of what he said in the previous round from this forum about philosophy:

http://forums.philosophyforums.com...

I will even provide a screenshot top prove it. It is word for word copy and pasted. If the image cannot be viewed and only appears as a small icon, please right click on it and left click on open image in new tab. Otherwise, visit the site I provided and scroll all the way down to the last post by a user named "apokrisis".


Furthermore, this does not fit in this debate whatsoever!

I have provided a source showing how debate is not neccessarily beneficial, yet Pro has not refuted this! This is absurd!
Debate Round No. 4
humanright2debate

Pro

critical point from Contender
---------------------------------------
***However, I will not be a jerk who uses semantics to my advantage, so I will interepret your claim to be "Debate is beneficial".

You have agreed with yourself there is a semantics error in this case ,in your subjective view of this debate "there a error in it semantics meaning ". therefore this is going to be the case that you have already accepted for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

your 2nd round make no logic,

****I am not here to debate semantics. I have already said that.
-----------------------------
let me remind u again of your position in this debate of "there a error in it semantics meaning"
on round 1 you claim and agree this is a semantics debate in your view and have taken the contender side which you have to against that there is no semantics error in it , but than now you are not here to have debate on the semantics of what you stated, because instead of objecting , Contender fully agree there is semantics error in it .

----------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------

critical point from Contender

******According to your definition of the term "elephant" and "grey", it is also obvious that they are not the same thing.
-->Your definition of the term "elephant" is a large mammal.
-->Your definitions of the terrms "grey" and "pink" are a type of color.
--->An elephant is not a type of color because an elephant is a large mammal.
---->Therefore, "elephant" and "grey" are not the same thing.

*However, it is acceptable to say "The elephant is grey" because the term "grey" IS AN ADJECTIVE. However, the term "benefit" IS A NOUN. Because it is a noun, you cannot use it in the same way that you use an adjective.

*Let me repeat that: YOU CANNOT USE A NOUN LIKE AN ADJECTIVE, excluding certain cases such as when you are using metaphors, which would not be an acceptable title due to the confusion it can cause. Furthermore, you did not specify that you were using a metaphor, therefore, I was under the implication that I had the freedom to interpret your claims however I desire.
--------------------------------------------

Contender let me remind you again that , this is a arguments in it semantics of logic, the meaning of meaning in statement which is either meaningful in the view of LOGIC,self subjective,objective.
THIS is not a English class or a debate on if dictionary lesson, this is a arguments between the case of semantics logic , the meaning of meaning.
which you claim there" a error of it semantics meaning" in this case ,
and have your position as a Contender , that is to again that there is no semantics error in this case.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****I urge you to forget semantics and start the debate already! You have wasted 2 rounds already! If you, the instigator, will not instigate the debate, then I will.

I will begin by providing a link to a debate on DDO. The debate's title is: Do You think I'm Hot. The contents of the debate is people criticizing and hating on each other. This is certainly not beneficial.

http://www.debate.org......

--------------------------------------------
Contender again, get back to your topic first that you have already agreed to debate on. r u that fool to post such topic and trying to link with this topic?
the above link that you provide is totally not linked for this debate case .
its a question asked , how could a question be a debate when its not even a case ?

AGAIN LET ME REMIND U, IF u are really that tiny.. lol

Debate is on.
" a error of it semantics meaning" in this case ,
and have your position as a Contender , that is to again there is no semantics error in this case.

AGAIN let me say,
on your round one
You have agreed accpet with yourself there is a semantics error in this case ,in your subjective view of this debate "there a error in it semantics meaning ". therefore this is going to be the case that you have already accepted for.

AGAIN let me say,
you are in the Contender , that is to again there is no semantics error in this case.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********PRO HAS PLAGARISED WITHOUT PROVIDING THE SOURCE!

Pro has copied and pasted a lot of what he said in the previous round from this forum about philosophy:

http://forums.philosophyforums.com......

------------------------------------------
how stupid can one be?
semantics logic is about philosophy
meaning of meaning arguments is deep roots between philosophy, the above is just a good explain, which could indicated both side of arguments.

AGAIN let me say,
you are in the Contender , your main objective is to point out
there is no semantics error for this case above.
Defro

Con

Pro doesn't seem to know what he is saying. And most would agree that his use of diction and language is hard to understand.

If Pro's wish is to debate semantics, then I am open to interpretation as to what the terms mean because Pro didn't specify in round 1. He simply provided definitions of the terms, therefore this debate's interpretation must go to me. Therefore, no matter how Pro wishes to argue semantics, because I have the right to interpretation, Pro must follow my interpretation.


To wrap up the debate:

-Pro did not follow my interpretation of his thesis.
-Regardless of Pro's arguments on semantics, Pro has not proven why Debate is Benefit.
-Pro has plagiarised word for word his entire 4th round.
-
Pro made several spelling and grammar errors. I am aware that I've made a few too, but despite my errors, my arguments are still understandable, whereas Pro's arguments were very difficult to understand.
-Pro did not provide any sources to back up his case. At round 4, I even had to provide his own source for him. I provided 1 source that supports my argument that debate is not benefit.

*This is more than enough reason to deduct points from Pro for conduct, spelling and grammar, reliable sources, and convincing arguments. Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
@humanright2debate

Because you did not specify, I have the freedom of interpretation. Therefore no matter what "meaning" you use, you must use mine.
Posted by humanright2debate 2 years ago
humanright2debate
Contender clearly are not able to understand what is this debate about ,after 2,3,4 round with explain ,failed to see his position for this debate, failed to ask for clarification .

this argument main objective is to seek "The Meaning of Meaning" . meaning of meaning is the most power logic , the highest standard of logic. this need a much higher intelligent to deeply understand such concept .

not even worth for a single neurons to fire on this debate.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
@humanright2debate
Why would you plagarize like that? Why??? That post doesn't even tie in with our debate!
Posted by humanright2debate 2 years ago
humanright2debate
i have to admit its a error, but we learn must more from error
Posted by CJKAllstar 2 years ago
CJKAllstar
If I was any more pedantic I could have won the debate simply by questioning the semantics of saying, 'Debate is benefit.' I recommend changing your motion to, 'Debates are beneficial', in order to prevent any meticulous person winning basically by default.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
humanright2debateDefroTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro took this debate off topic with his use of semantics, however I'm not rating argument points. S & G to Con as Pro made many "Capitalization" errors. Conduct points to Con for Pro's use of semantics and taking this debate off topic.