The Instigator
Dubs_for_whatevs
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
chesslvr
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Language is the transcendental signified.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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: 10/30/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,452 times Debate No: 19031
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Dubs_for_whatevs

Pro

God has been superseded by man who has been now overturned by language.
The transcendental signified as it should be interpreted in the context of this debate, is a conception of that which grants things meaning from some external origin. (Science, religion, psychology, rationality, anthropology etc.) I claim that language is precisely the singularity from which everything is conceived and therefore properly valued.
I suspect there are going to be women trying to follow this debate because they want to prove they are just as smart as any chauvinistic man, but your not going to be able to and I suggest you let your husband have anal sex with you.

The affirmative argument is simply, that insofar as my conceptualization of things, objects, events, is restricted by its articulation as a sign, and insofar as signs are restricted by the nature of their construction to be arbitrary, meaning must be granted first by the sign and then only thereafter can my conceptualization can be realized.
For example, when I articulate a sign "water bottle" it is not the water bottle that I am referring to, rather it is my conceptualization of the words "water bottle" only as a communicative resource. I cannot have the cognitive discourse it requires to command a sequence which would give me a concept, without a language for me to construct (and by that I mean the opposite, to deconstruct everything the object is not to find what the object is) the concept.
Does that make sense?
chesslvr

Con

I will accept this debate, but first my opponent needs to clarify what he means.

"God has been superseded by man who has been now overturned by language.
The transcendental signified as it should be interpreted in the context of this debate, is a conception of that which grants things meaning from some external origin. (Science, religion, psychology, rationality, anthropology etc.) I claim that language is precisely the singularity from which everything is conceived and therefore properly valued.
I suspect there are going to be women trying to follow this debate because they want to prove they are just as smart as any chauvinistic man, but your not going to be able to and I suggest you let your husband have anal sex with you."

Okay, in that entire jumble of words, not one single thing made sense, other than my opponent's ignorant comment about women, which makes me suspect he is a troll

"The affirmative argument is simply, that insofar as my conceptualization of things, objects, events, is restricted by its articulation as a sign, and insofar as signs are restricted by the nature of their construction to be arbitrary, meaning must be granted first by the sign and then only thereafter can my conceptualization can be realized.
For example, when I articulate a sign "water bottle" it is not the water bottle that I am referring to, rather it is my conceptualization of the words "water bottle" only as a communicative resource. I cannot have the cognitive discourse it requires to command a sequence which would give me a concept, without a language for me to construct (and by that I mean the opposite, to deconstruct everything the object is not to find what the object is) the concept.
Does that make sense?"

No, it does not make sense. Please speak English, so that I can follow what you are saying through the duration of this debate. I don't know if my opponent is being serious or not but to use all these complex words and confusing terms isn't necessary. Please just say what you mean and simplify your vocabulary. It looks like my opponent is showing off and trying to appear intelligent, but I can't even tell what he's getting at.
Debate Round No. 1
Dubs_for_whatevs

Pro

"God has been superseded by man who has been now overturned by language.
The transcendental signified as it should be interpreted in the context of this debate, is a conception of that which grants things meaning from some external origin. (Science, religion, psychology, rationality, anthropology etc.) I claim that language is precisely the singularity from which everything is conceived and therefore properly valued.
I suspect there are going to be women trying to follow this debate because they want to prove they are just as smart as any chauvinistic man, but your not going to be able to and I suggest you let your husband have anal sex with you.

The affirmative argument is simply, that insofar as my conceptualization of things, objects, events, is restricted by its articulation as a sign, and insofar as signs are restricted by the nature of their construction to be arbitrary, meaning must be granted first by the sign and then only thereafter can my conceptualization can be realized.
For example, when I articulate a sign "water bottle" it is not the water bottle that I am referring to, rather it is my conceptualization of the words "water bottle" only as a communicative resource. I cannot have the cognitive discourse it requires to command a sequence which would give me a concept, without a language for me to construct (and by that I mean the opposite, to deconstruct everything the object is not to find what the object is) the concept.
Does that make sense?"

To put it simply. Language is the origin of meaning. I cannot ascribe value to an object independent of a linguistic prerequisite. In as much as language is essential for internal discourse (thought), the rhetoric is loaded with dependent terms that act as independent terms. For example, the argument that I can manufacture for socialism being preferred to capitalism, is completely rhetorical. There is no such thing as an empirical argument as the language used to construct the argument is purposefully misleading by not including the differences that make the clause valuable. Furthermore when I indicate that objects (water bottle) exist in the phenomenal world, I do that with language. Unfortunately there is a distance between my linguistic signification and the object as I experience it. It is this distance that makes it impossible for me to talk about the object, and however hard I try I can only talk about the sign used to represent the object.
If it still doesn't make sense, I'll forfeit the final round and we can accept a tie.
chesslvr

Con

chesslvr forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
chesslvr

Con

chesslvr forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
This thing reads like a spam e-mail trying to avoid a heuristics filter.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
oh my god look at your begining, THAT'S UNCALLED FOR. Evil untrue. women sorry to say to me and other men, they have a slightly higher IQ
Posted by Dubs_for_whatevs 5 years ago
Dubs_for_whatevs
It's*
Posted by Dubs_for_whatevs 5 years ago
Dubs_for_whatevs
The man trying to keep me down. Its back up
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
He removed the bit about the buttsecks. Why did he do that?
Posted by dro1d1 5 years ago
dro1d1
technically I agree but don't agree, if that makes sense?
I agree with you on the point that you made about not being able to construct sequences with a language to order them into, although I have to disagree with the rest because for one, you centred around sexism for one of your arguments, and two, because you do not need language for cognitive thinking. primates have no language and yet some primates have far superior cognitive function than most humans, so all in all, language is not needed for function.
Posted by Debater17 5 years ago
Debater17
do you mean that "language is necessary for logical thinking?"
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
This trolling... it's a thing of beauty!
No votes have been placed for this debate.