This exceeding trifling witling, considering ranting criticizing concerning adopting fitting wording being exhibiting transcending learning, was displaying, notwithstanding ridiculing, surpassing boasting swelling reasoning, respecting correcting erring writing, and touching detecting deceiving arguing during debating.
My opponent made a little mistake in the link provided. Here it is properly: http://mentalfloss.com...
For easier understanding, I will now provide the paraphrasing of the resolution, as offered by the source supplied by my opponent:
"This very superficial grammatist, supposing empty criticism about the adoption of proper phraseology to be a show of extraordinary erudition, was displaying, in spite of ridicule, a very boastful turgid argument concerning the correction of false syntax, and about the detection of false logic in debate."
This is a positive statement, so burden of proof is completely upon my opponent. All I need to do is prove this impossible or contradictory.
This is easily accomplished: Let's strip the sentence down to its main clause.
This ... grammatist ... was displaying ... a very boastful argument concerning the correction of false syntax and about the detection of false logic in debate.
My opponent has not named who "this grammatist" is, so we must assume it's him talking about himself, as this is a well-established rhetoric stylistic device called Illeism ( http://grammar.about.com... ).
My opponent thus has to meet his burden of proof that he is, indeed, a "very superficial grammatist".
Full Definition of GRAMMATIST by Merriam-Webster's dictionary
: a usu. pedantic grammarian
A specialist in grammar.
1. (Grammar) a person whose occupation is the study of grammar
2. (Grammar) the author of a grammar (from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... )
My opponent gives his profile as being a fifteen year-old ( http://www.debate.org... ), making it highly unlikely that his occupation is "the study of grammar". While most certainly, grammar is taught in school, more than that is needed to make a person a "grammatist", because otherwise the term would apply to everyone, making a definition of the term useless.
"superficial": My opponent started a debate about a grammatical problem, the overuse of the ending "-ing" in the English language. This requires in-depth-understanding of grammar and semantics, showing that my opponent is NOT superficial.
The proposition is thus disproved.
Now to the next part: "was displaying ... a[n] ... argument".
This is past tense. But my opponent did not provide any argument on the topics mentioned in the resolution. The resolution is thus disproved.
My opponent thus stated sentence that is just not true. He has yet to meet his burden of proof.
You have realized the true meaning of this debate: to dissupport the certain tone, quality, and approprateness of a certain word in and comprehend the argument I made.
Actually you have not.
You think your argument has to be about whether this certain situation is impossible or not, while in reality I revealed what you really have to do in the previous sentence.
You have only proven my point that this situation is impossible.
That also adds to why this debate is impossible. I failed to clarify what exactly you had to do, and you blindly stumbled upon my trap, only helping me as pro.
My opponent underestimates me.
Yes, I analyzed the sentence given by my opponent, disproving it. Because I'm aware of the fact that the resolution was presented as a two-parter in a somewhat spongy way.
Had I picked up on the "impossible" aspect of this debate first, my opponent would have argued POST-HOC that I disregarded the sentence he proposed in the post. He's just stalling for time, so this debate would end unresolved and he'd win.
So, I chose to disprove the sentence first, so we have that out of the way. My opponent addressed it and has already conceded that his proposed sentence was just a distraction, so he has dropped this point, leaving only the resolution that this debate is "impossible".
In fact, I was waiting for my opponent to pick up the debate, thus conceding this is a debate. Which means it's not impossible.
My opponent ARGUES that because I did not address the topic of this debate allegedly being "impossible" on the first round, I helped him prove his proposition.
But in taking my post up as basis for his argument (rebuttal), he has joined the debate, so it was obviously possible for him and myself to both enter this debate, and now we're discussing a disagreement: this proves we're having a debate, and my opponent is entirely disproved. He even concedes that he premeditated me helping him out as Pro, which by logical necessity makes him "Con".
Anything that exists is obviously possible.
That which is possible is obviously not impossible.
This debate has been taken up by both sides, hence it exists.
Thus it is possible.
The debate is basically over here. I leave it up to my opponent to concede in the next round in dignity.
Mah-hahhahaha, you have fallen right into my trap!
I was not debating about how this debate was impossible--I was waiting until this last round to tell you...
it's impossible for you to win.
By revealing little by ltitle information each round, I misdirected you to think this was a troll debate. "Of course this debate is possible! I accepted it and he made it, so this debate is possible!" You say to yourself. You are correct, obviously, but you thought of the wrong thing.
ROUND ONE: I post confusing sentence, you analyze it and say it's impossible
ROUND TWO: I say it only proves my point that "this debate is impossible", even saying "I failed to clarify what exactly you had to do, and you blindly stumbled upon my trap, only helping me as pro." he rebuts it with the fact that he accepted this debate that was made, and thus this debate is impossible.
But that's not true. I never clearly stated "this debate is impossilbe....for con to win."
I just swindled him by saying part of that sentence: "this debate is impossible, I failed to clarify...you...only helped me as pro". That' even a CLUE to saying that this debate is NOT whether over it's impossible or not, but over the impossibility of winning the debate.
The vague title of "impossible debate" made this debate impossible.
As already stated, my opponent is mistaken about me.
The final round ends with my statement, giving me the possibility to win this and have him finally commit to a complete resolution.
Thus, it was possible from the very beginning for me to win this.
I don't even have to actually WIN. All I need to do is to provide proof of the POSSIBILITY of me winning.
Which I did before. I refuted any argument and resolution my opponent brought up.
A failure to specify his resolution effects his loss of the debate, as the burden of proof was on him from the beginning, since he made a positive statement.
He did nothing to meet his burden of proof, although I pointed him to that in the first round. He only rebutted my arguments, never offering any proof.
All we have are his post-hoc statements about him having planned a strategy. But he ignores that although he calls it impossible, he STILL called this a debate.
Hence, all rules for debates still apply.
Burden of proof, for whatever resolution, was on the instigator - as which my opponent is clearly identified above.
My opponent never offered proof.
He did thus not meet his burden of proof.
So, no matter from which perspective this debate is looked at, I refuted all of my opponent's arguments.
Thank you for this little fun battle of wits.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|