The Instigator
baus
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
theyseemewhalin
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

If words are people then the ping relies more on the pong than the pong does on the ping.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 349 times Debate No: 55476
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

baus

Pro

This debate is under the assumption that the phrase "ping pong" cannot be switched in order of wording. It also assumes that both words on their own are inferior to when they are together in that phrase.

Accepting this debate without supporting that premise will result in a full 7-point forfeit.

Please do not think this will be an easy troll debate. It will be a devastatingly magnificent win for me if you think so.

I am warning you to think this carefully through before you accept.

Round one is for Con to make their case, it is not for acceptance. Failure to do so will result in 7-point forfeiture.

People must be humans, not any other species.
theyseemewhalin

Con

I disagree. Words, being a tool created by the people for the people's use, do not have to rely on anything. They are simply a tool for communication from one person to the next. We, as a species, rely on words to communicate all of our needs, thoughts, and impulses. While other species communicate through movements, gestures, or grunts, this would not be practical in our modern age.

Imagine for a minute a boss grunting across a row of seven cubicles at an employee. Which of the seven employees is he grunting to? Or if he uses gestures, how would the employee be able to know the boss is trying to tell him something. How would loudspeakers or concerts work out? It wouldn't. There would be too much confusion and life would not function properly.

We rely on words to express ourselves, our imagination, and the beauty around us. What would Homer's Odyssey be without words? How would we even write without words? Humans without words could not function in a modern age. Words are nothing without humans, as we created them in the first place.

Words cannot be inferior on their own, because if they were on their own they would not exist. They were, once again, created FOR HUMAN USE.
Humans are not inferior on their own, because, while we would not have progressed as far as we are now technologically, we are still functioning beings with intellect that far surpasses any other being on this planet.

We dominate this planet.
Debate Round No. 1
baus

Pro

I never said that one was inferior to the other, thus rendering your point moot.

What I did say is that the pong of "ping pong" relies more on the ping than the ping does on the pong.

The ping is reliant upon the pong to give it a reason for existing. When someone says the phrase "ping pong", the moment they utter the word "ping" the ping is essentially meaningless and left alone to only mean "An abrupt high-pitched ringing sound" (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...). This sound is not only irritating (see the first YouTube video for evidence) but it is also very pointless unless combined with other sounds to complete it. On the other hand, "ping pong" refers to a sport so brilliant that it is played in the Olympics (although, for international purposes, it is referred to as 'table tennis' there) [http://tabletennis.about.com...].

If words are people then it is inevitable that they'd feel emotions such as pride and loneliness. In much the same ways that humans seek a meaning of life, or existence, the ping will feel incomplete and meaningless without the pong to make its entire existence to finally give it a sense of belonging.

So now, you may be left wondering why the pong does not rely as much on the ping as the ping does on the pong. This is because, on its own, 'pong' has meaning and purpose. To be exact, its meaning is to be 'a strong, unpleasant smell' [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...]. Unlike a ping, the pong does not need accompanying smells to feel meaningful, whereas the ping needs other sounds to have a purpose within a song or something of that sort. The smell itself is strong. A strong person is less reliant on others than a weak one. Strong people actively avoid the mental traps that weaker ones fall into [http://www.forbes.com...].
theyseemewhalin

Con

I un-moot my point by pointing out the point that you stated in your first sentence; "...It also assumes that both words on their own are inferior to when they are together in that phrase."

To be honest this whole debate is moot as you never provided a specific question to begin with, but rather a confusing jumble of words designed to give you the upper hand, and therefore "a devastatingly magnificent win"

But you will not get this "win".

Your definitions are irrelevant as there is more than one definition to the words ping and pong.

"Pong" is an onomatopoeia (as it is a sound in the form of a word), as is "Ping". Therefore ping and pong are simply sounds that happen to be the same sounds that are made by ball and paddle in a game of table tennis. You have heard the ping of rain on sheet metal, I'm sure. You have heard the pong of an object hitting the bottom of an overturned metal pot, or the pong made by bongos. Each sound is separate. The two sounds do not always accompany themselves in nature. Therefore, both ping and pong do not need be in the phrase ping pong or the succession of sounds ping pong to be superior to the individual sounds of ping and pong.
Debate Round No. 2
baus

Pro

By stating that the words are both inferior alone than when in the phrase, I indicate that the phrase is the optimum formation of the words.

"Pong" is not an onomatopoeic word. It is a foul smell of severe strength and I already supplied the Oxford dictionary definition of this word. Ping is a sound and I explain why it only has purpose and meaning in a symphony of some kind whereas, alone it is not a meaningful sound of any kind.

If words are people, they need meaning for existence as people do. Thus, the pong is a strong individual than a ping.

The ping needs the pong to complete the phrase 'ping pong' whereas the pong cannot exist in the phrase ping pong' if the ping hasn't already been stated to request the pong's existence. thus the pong is never left relying on the ping as it doesn't exist to rely on the ping to begin with.
theyseemewhalin

Con

theyseemewhalin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
baus

Pro

baus forfeited this round.
theyseemewhalin

Con

theyseemewhalin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
baus

Pro

baus forfeited this round.
theyseemewhalin

Con

theyseemewhalin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.