The Instigator
Lexicaholic
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

I am me

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 9 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,604 times Debate No: 8681
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (9)

 

Lexicaholic

Pro

I am me. I am also bored because I haven't seen an interesting debate in a while, or at least not one where people want to win using syntactical or semantic arguments. So I've set up this debate. I'm sure I have, because I am me and I remember doing it. Unless I'm not me, in which case, at least I can't lose.

Coincidentally, if anyone has a good debate topic, it would be nice to post it, so that I can participate in it ... or so that whoever happens to be me can.

**Note: I will play this out as a joke debate. Walls of text will not be streaming like rivers throughout this debate, unless my opponent feels like it**
wjmelements

Con

My opponent has not defined any words, so I will make a few assumptions as to what he means.

It took me a while to understand what my opponent meant by "me", so I did some research. If he had meant the secondary subject form of "I", then it would have read "myself". This is because "be" verbs do not render their "objects" in the object form, but in the nominitive case. The repeat nominitive for "I" is "myself".

So, I did some more research and found what my opponent meant.

I=the instigator.
am=to be (conjugated for "I")
me=Myalgic Encephalomyelitis http://www.afme.org.uk...

My argument then is simple. My opponent can not be Myalgic Encephalomyelitis because it is a disorder in humans caused by a virus that impares the immune system and by trauma. My opponent is not a nervous disorder. Therefore, he cannot be me.

I thank my opponent for this debate and await a response.
Debate Round No. 1
Lexicaholic

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for attempting to define who I am, or am not, as the case may be. Certainly I am not Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. Did I spell that right? That was very clever of my opponent to use a word I had a very high chance of misspelling. I had to copy and paste it, just to make sure. I didn't want to give him any undue points, or even any due points.

In any event, I certainly could not have posited that I am Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (Copy! Paste!), because that would require me to use the acronym M.E., which clearly I did not do. A plain reading of my use of the word 'me' obviously renders to me and anyone else (possibly also me) reading it that-

*deep breath*

-I used a lower case 'm' and 'e'. There were also no periods. The site my opponent links to uses M.E. as the appropriate acronym. So while I may not be M.E., I may certainly still be me. I posit that I am. My proof is that I am me. By which, of course, I meant the informal self-referential 'me.' http://dictionary.reference.com...

It's somewhat a pity that my opponent did not posit that I am myself instead of me, but it is now clear, using the above reference, that I am me, by which I informally state that I am, in fact, myself. Informality being the form of this debate (as I have promised), I hardly see the trouble with it.
wjmelements

Con

"It's somewhat a pity that my opponent did not posit [sic] that I am myself instead of me"
I already did.

As I have already argued, my opponent's definition of "me" could not be the correct definition, because it does not fit its place in the sentence.

It even says in my opponent's definition:
"the objective case of I, used as a direct or indirect object" http://dictionary.reference.com...
The reflexive case would be proper to use in this situation.

My opponent's source does not verify his claim, it negates it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It then becomes important to find a more proper definition of "me", as none has been found yet.
I PROPOSE A VALID DEFINITION OF ME
http://en.wikipedia.org...(mythology)
http://www.crystalinks.com...
From the second of those sources:
"The me is the order out of chaos, the great attributes of civilization, the powers of the gods. The me were conferred by the gods on other gods or on the king-priests, who as the representatives of the gods on Earth, ensured the continuation of civilization.

The special powers, contained within the me allowed the holy plan or design (the gis-hur) to be implemented on Earth. The me were contained within special objects of great sacred value, such as the royal throne, the sacred bed, the temple drum, the scepter, the crown, and other special articles of clothing or jewelry to be worn, sat on, lied in, and so forth."

ALSO:
Consider the following:
-There is no way for the resolution to display subscripts because of DDO's code format.
-The "e" could be a subscript.
-If "e" was a subscript, then "me" would mean "electron mass". http://www.answers.com...
This is the most valid possibility for the definition of "me". If my opponent wishes to contend this, then he must propose a more valid definition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY MY OPPONENT CANNOT BE A SPECIAL POWER CONVEYED BY "THE GODS"

Me was the way of gods to carry out their divine design. They were spirit-like powers contained in valuable objects. My opponent is neither a spirit-like power or contained inside an object. He is a human.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WHY MY OPPONENT CANNOT BE ELECTRONIC MASS EITHER

While my opponent may have electron mass, he is not electron mass. He is also composed of protons and neutrons.

I await a response.
Debate Round No. 2
Lexicaholic

Pro

My opponent has done an excellent job showing that I have made a syntactical error. Clearly, my meaning may have been off. Yet I need only show how I am me to win the debate. Well, me intends to do that. I mean, I intend to do that. Sorry, syntax.

My opponent states that I can not be 'me', where me is "the way of gods to carry out their divine design. They were spirit-like powers contained in valuable objects." I would argue that, from a number of theological perspectives, I would qualify for this definition. After all, Christianity holds that people are basically spirit containers, temples for the will of God. The Bible and Sumerian gods both posited similar high gods, who could very well be the same. http://en.wikipedia.org...(god)

Now, while I may not be wrapped around the waist of a naked goddess, I would like to be, and that has to count for something. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Having argued on a fallacy and using blasphemy, I now feel the need to rely upon statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.google.com...
http://www.google.com...

As you can see from the above searches, 1,330,000,000 hits occur for "I am me." Only "180,000,000 hits occur for "I am myself." Clearly the masses have already decided that "I am me" not "I am myself." Let's see what brilliant minds share this understanding:

http://en.wikipedia.org... - Ashlee Simpson, one of the greatest lip synchers of our time, has proudly declared that I am me. Do you want to argue with Ashlee? Wouldn't it be easier, on the eyes, to just agree?

http://www.iamme.org... - Iamme, an organization devoted to teaching the English language. If they don't know what's what, no one does.

http://coffeegrounds.wordpress.com... - An inspirational poem goes well out of it's way to express the importance that I be me.

http://www.davidickebooks.co.uk... - David Icke has affirmatively stated that "I am me." If David Icke says it is so, that means that several alien species speaking through him must agree that it is so. Do we really want to tell the entire galactic federation that they've got it wrong?

http://cat.inist.fr... - At least one paper analyzing communications notes the frequent usage of I am me in conjunction with other phrases.

So in conclusion, in so far as any word or phrase holds its meaning only in that others recognize its validity, I am me and I'll be darned if my opponent tells me I'm anyone else. http://www.answers.com...
wjmelements

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate.

My opponent has made a volley of claims.

"After all, Christianity holds that people are basically spirit containers, temples for the will of God."
That does not make one a me, as "The me is the order out of chaos, the great attributes of civilization, the powers of the gods." http://www.crystalinks.com...

"while I may not be wrapped around the waist of a naked goddess, I would like to be, and that has to count for something."
It counts for nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Clearly the masses have already decided that 'I am me' not 'I am myself.' "
http://en.wikipedia.org... The masses of Mesoptamia once thought that the earth was flat. Popular belief does not make something true or false. This applies to celebrities (http://en.wikipedia.org...), conspirists (http://www.davidickebooks.co.uk... http://www.davidickebooks.co.uk...) and novice poets (http://coffeegrounds.wordpress.com...) as well.

"Iamme, an organization devoted to teaching the English language. If they don't know what's what, no one does."
The "Illinois Association for Multilingual Multicultural Education" http://www.iamme.org... does not declare endorsement of the phrase "I am me" as gramatically correct. Perhaps they just thought otherwise. And, again, people thinking that it is gramatically correct does not make it correct. http://en.wikipedia.org...

"At least one paper analyzing communications notes the frequent usage of I am me in conjunction with other phrases."
This book (http://cat.inist.fr...) does not really cover what my opponent claims. It appears to be an article about marketing (http://direct.bl.uk...), and it probably says in it that it is okay to be gramatically incorrect in titles because it is shorter http://en.wikipedia.org... and so gets attention better. Intentional misuse does not make things gramatically correct.

So, in conclusion, every possible interpretation of the sentence, "I am me", is false.
-"I am me (direct object)" is gramatically incorrect (conceded by PRO, while he tried to argue that it is still correct indirectly).
-"I am electron mass" is false (conceded by PRO, who dropped this argument in the third round).
-"I am me (religious spirit)" is false (as my opponent is not "order out of chaos", "the great attributes of civilization", or "the powers of the gods", though he may think he is.

In no case is my opponent "me", so one knows that the resolution is negated. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
If I need a fun class in college, I'll keep that in mind.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Lol, yeah, I learned about them years ago in a Mythology course I took in college. If you want to see a really, really funny old religious rite, read Inanna's courtship ... it was a sacred king/heavenly queen fertility ritual where the queen represented the earth ... when you get to the part where the earth, as the Queen, is asking to be plowed, well, you'll burst out laughing. It puts a whole new perspective on religious studies.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
This debate was actually rather fun. I had no idea what a me was until I looked it up on Wikipedia's disambiguation (which was very helpful).
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
It's cool however you vote, Mr.Mark ... this one was set up as a semantics argument, although thanks for the support. The question I guess is whether or not you determine meaning by context and commonly understood relevance or by proper usage. It's a more interesting debate than it appears. But I think my opponent more than deserves it for arguing the resolution properly when there were only a limited number of ways to vote.
Posted by bored 7 years ago
bored
S&G: tie
Arguments: Con
Sources: Con
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I do my best to leave RFDs, and it is the best way to defeat vote bombing.
Posted by MrMarkP37 7 years ago
MrMarkP37
Well I hate semantical arguments. I don't believe they prove someone is a better debater, just a better nit-picker. Would be good if this site was called nitpick.org not debate.org. People shouldn't be punished for mistakes in wording that are easily understood. However, in this instance I see the point of it, because as I said Lexicaholic created a debate that could only be won by using semantical arguments. My main thesis still stands though. I like when people like mongeese explain why they vote the way they did. When people don't do that I wonder how much how a voter personally feels either about the topic or the person factors in. I have voted against what I personally believe many times because the other person made a better argument. I don't know how much people do that on this site.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Actually, I conceded to wjm on this one, at least in the better argument sense.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
B/A - PRO/CON
Arguments - CON
He showed how the resolution couldn't involve the pronoun "me," and how any other "me" wouldn't work.
Sources - CON
CON had more research done.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
(none, not non)
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by slobodow 7 years ago
slobodow
LexicaholicwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by bored 7 years ago
bored
LexicaholicwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by zenlander 7 years ago
zenlander
LexicaholicwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
LexicaholicwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by MrMarkP37 7 years ago
MrMarkP37
LexicaholicwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by ilovgoogle 7 years ago
ilovgoogle
LexicaholicwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
LexicaholicwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
LexicaholicwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
LexicaholicwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05