The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
KritiKal
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Semantical arguments are, in general, just.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,310 times Debate No: 8529
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (60)
Votes (9)

 

mongeese

Pro

I think that semantical arguments are just.

Semantical - a type of argument in which the Contender of a debate uses the fact that either the Instigator used a resolution that was easily abusable or the Instigator failed to define the resolution so that the Contender could take the debate away from the framer's intent.
Argument - "a reason given in proof or rebuttal" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
In general - "for the most part" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Just - "being what is merited" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2])
Merited - DESERVED

I will allow my opponent to either make an opening argument or just accept the debate. Thank you for reading.
KritiKal

Con

I'll start with some general framework, which will be pretty self-explanatory, and then off of those I'll make a general argument.

(I kind of mix up "contender" and "instigator" because I am not familiar with this site to the degree where I can accurately use the terms. Use your discretion, but it's pretty intuitive what I mean.)

Observations:

I. I agree to his definitions, except I'd like to note that semantics arguments RELY on alternative definitions by the CON. It's unfair to say that if I look at the resolution from a different angle than the one the framer does it is semantical, b/c it's just a difference in viewpoint. If I define words differently to exploit the resolution abusively then it falls under the category of semantics. Thus, my entire case isn't a semantics argument because I'm using all of his definitions and just clarifying one (non-abusively, at that.)

II. His definition of semantical gives two scenarios, because there is no empirical survey on how often both types of semantics arguments are used, we can conclude them to utilized equally (50%). If we use his definition of "in general" it appears that in order to affirm you would have to prove that semantical arguments are just most of the time, or >50%. Thus, the negative only needs to disprove in one circumstance and you would rightfully negate. (these are his definitions, not mine, we both accept this standard.)

III. This debate is a debate on how debate should be operated, thus the calculus you use to determine the victor is one of which side better proves that semantical arguments invalidate or uphold the general principles of debate, or intellectual discourse on the whole. Obviously I don't "deserve" an argument that is abusive, or destroys the purpose that debate was built upon.

ARGUMENTS (I can't label these contentions as this is a theory debate, it goes against my nature :))

I'll take this train of thought and start it at his definition of "semantical", he gives us two scenarios:

1) The resolution can be easily abused.
2) The resolution is ill-defined.

We'll start at scenario one. Note that this scenario simply means the resolution CAN be abused, he doesn't define that the resolution IS abused, so don't let him draw that conclusion later on. Moreover, any resolution CAN be abused insofar as i can define any resolution to say something else entirely. For example, if I define this resolution:

Semantical arguments - elephants
are - to be
in general - most of the time
just - animals.

Then there is clear abuse there. So this means we can extend his definition of semantical to every single resolution.

So basically in 1 he says that in every resolution it is OKAY for the contender to take the resolution and, "take the debate away from the framer's intent." There are several problems with this:

1: The framer who creates the resolution creates the world in which that resolution exists. To take away the framer's power is clearly abusive: the instigator here is justifying that it is legitimate for his position to abstract the resolution to a degree where the ideas that went into creating the resolution are voided and instead the resolution is restructured to meet the needs of the contender debater. Restructuring this world is abusive because it voids any arguments the framer can make in his original case, so it gives the contender an extra argument in this new theoretical world.

2: Moreover, the framer obviously goes into the round with the mentality to debate what he has chosen, if we redefine the resolution we invalidate the purpose of debate for the framer of the resolution. For example, if I choose to debate High School Policy because the topic is alternative energy and I find that to be intriguing, if I go into a round with an Alternative Energy argument and my opponents decide we are to debate health care then my interest for debating that specific resolution is ignored. It gives the one utilizing the semantics argument an unfair advantage because while the framer's resolution existed before the contender could take it, the contender's alternate reality only began to exist within the round itself, so the framer could not prep for it and could not choose to debate it, instead he is forced.

3: Even if my opponent disproves the abuse I spell out in 1/2, he still needs to prove that the restructuring of the resolution is DESERVED. At the point where I tell you that his definition of semantical DOES NOT ASSERT that the framer of the resolution IS BEING abusive, only that he POTENTIALLY COULD BE, then there is no reason to restructure the debate.

Alright, let's go to his "ill-defined" scenario. First, you can drag the first two problems I give you with his first scenario down to the second scenario as they cross apply pretty well. Next, let's note that there is NO BRIGHTLINE on what "ill-defined" or "failed to define" means, some resolutions are just pretty intuitively understood. For example:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.

the 2008-2009 high school policy topic reads pretty clearly. I don't understand how you could misunderstand that, even without definitions. Even this resolution is pretty clear.

I don't understand why a resolution necessitates that it is defined when it is clearly understood. He doesn't make this apparent, and neither do his definitions because nowhere in his definition of semantical does he point out that the resolution has to be UNCLEAR, instead he just says it isn't defined.

So you carry across the two problems of abuse I give you under the first scenario, then you establish the third problem:

3: Resolutions that are intuitively understood are either:

A: clouded up by definitions that distort the resolution from it's original understanding.
B: redundantly defined, because you're just defining what we already know.

Either way, it's pointless for debate and it doesn't necessitate why they are deserved.

POTENTIAL COUNTERARGUMENTS

The only way his position has any legitimacy is if:

1: The resolution is already semantically abused by the framer.
2: The resolution is cloudly.

But in the first circumstance, you could just choose to NOT ACCEPT the debate, at which point nobody accepts his abusive semantics arguments and they dissolve into nothing. There's a twofold impact here:

1: by not accepting the debate, we make a statement that abusive arguments ARE NOT OKAY, thus we work to destroy their existence.

2: if we were to accept the debate, the statement would be the converse; it would say, "abusive semantics arguments ARE OKAY, let me run one against YOURS" and we just promulgate the kind of ideology we attempt to attack.

In the second circumstance, as the contender in the debate you can simply read the framer's case and deduce his interpretation of the resolution from that point on. Like, unless he gives you a bunch of gibberish (which is so rare I can't see it being a reason to vote) then you can just read his arguments. Moreover, if you attempt to REINTERPRET the resolution away from his arguments then the abusiveness harm I talk about for restructuring the world the framer creates can be carried through.

Either way, even if semantics arguments are legitimate arguments, I don't see them being "DESERVED" in debate.
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

Welcome to the site, KritiKal.

The Instigator is the person who starts the debate.
The Contender is the person who accepts the debate.

My first comment appears in your second observation.

"Thus, the negative only needs to disprove in one circumstance and you would rightfully negate. (these are his definitions, not mine, we both accept this standard.)"
Wrong. "In general," or "for the most part," means that I have to show that at least half of all semantical arguments are just. One counterexample will not be enough.

"III. This debate is a debate on how debate should be operated, thus the calculus you use to determine the victor is one of which side better proves that semantical arguments invalidate or uphold the general principles of debate, or intellectual discourse on the whole. Obviously I don't 'deserve' an argument that is abusive, or destroys the purpose that debate was built upon."
A man who does not bother to lock his doors deserves to be robbed, to teach him that he is foolish.

"We'll start at scenario one. Note that this scenario simply means the resolution CAN be abused, he doesn't define that the resolution IS abused, so don't let him draw that conclusion later on. Moreover, any resolution CAN be abused insofar as i[sic] can define any resolution to say something else entirely."
Your elephant example is unrealistic. It never happens on this site. Furthermore, the argument is only semantical if the Contender uses the "abusability" of the resolution. If he never uses it, it isn't semantical.

"Then there is clear abuse there. So this means we can extend his definition of semantical to every single resolution."
Wrong. If the Contender doesn't use the semantics, then his argument isn't semantical.
Furthermore, semantical arguments usually involve sourcing new definitions. Defining "just" as "animals" does not happen here.

"1: The framer who creates the resolution creates the world in which that resolution exists..."
When the Contender accepts the debate, he has a share in this world, as well. If the Instigator does not define anything, that's just asking for the Contender to do it for him. The framer created a world in which he did not give definitions. This leaves the Contender to add his own.

"2: Moreover, the framer obviously goes into the round with the mentality to debate what he has chosen..."
Your example is ridiculous. High School Policy and alternative energy aren't linkable through definition. Semantical arguments use real definitions to their advantage. They take, "Humpty Dumpty was Pushed," and change it to, "The Force Known as Push in Physics Acted Upon Humpty Dumpty," not, "Cheese Tastes Good." Again, this is about general semantical arguments.

"3: Even if my opponent disproves the abuse I spell out in 1/2, he still needs to prove that the restructuring of the resolution is DESERVED."
A man who leaves his house unlocked deserves to be robbed.
If a man starts a debate, and there is a man who can defeat him semantically, then the first man deserves to lose the debate, because there is a man who can beat him. Therefore, he deserves what he did not bother to prepare for.

"Next, let's note that there is NO BRIGHTLINE on what 'ill-defined' or 'failed to define' means, some resolutions are just pretty intuitively understood."
"Failed to define" means that he forgot to bother with definitions.
"Ill-defined" means that he uses definitions that need to be further defined by the Contender.
That's a pretty bright line in my mind. And in the mind of most debaters.

My opponent thinks there is a link between alternative energy and high school policy. If he can prove this with viable definitions, then sure, there's a link. However, I doubt that he can.

"I don't understand why a resolution necessitates that it is defined when it is clearly understood..."
Words quite often have multiple meanings.
You might intend for one meaning, but realize that another meaning would set you up for defeat.
Therefore, you mention what definition you intend to use.
A resolution that only has one possible implication cannot be "semanticized" against.

"3: Resolutions that are intuitively understood are either..."
They're still necessary. There are many definitions for "great," each with their own implications. You need to choose one to avoid having a Contender that misunderstood and genuinely thought that you were arguing a different "great."

"The only way his position has any legitimacy is if:
1: The resolution is already semantically abused by the framer."
Huh? By my definition of a semantical argument, only the Contender can use semantics. The only part an Instigator plays is when he fails to defend against semantics. In that case, he does deserve semantics. Otherwise, a semantical argument is never used against him, and therefore, the debate becomes irrelevant to this debate.

"1: by not accepting the debate, we make a statement that abusive arguments ARE NOT OKAY, thus we work to destroy their existence."
Irrelevant. Instigators can't make semantical arguments.

"2: if we were to accept the debate, the statement would be the converse..."
I don't even understand what you just said. What debate are you talking about, here?

"In the second circumstance, as the contender in the debate you can simply read the framer's case and deduce his interpretation of the resolution from that point on..."
Why? Usually, a semantical argument stems from the lack of an opening argument by the Instigator.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

In all of these, my opponent did not open up with an argument, automatically exposing it to semantics.

"Either way, even if semantics arguments are legitimate arguments, I don't see them being 'DESERVED' in debate."
I will now explain:
1. If a man does not bother to defend against something, he deserves to be attacked by it, to teach him not to be so ignorant as to not acknowledge it.
2. If a man starts a debate, and there exists a man who can accept the debate and defeat the first man semantically, then that man deserved to lose. Therefore, he deserved the argument used against him. Therefore, he deserved the semantical argument. Therefore, the semantical argument was just. This is what usually happens with semantical arguments, so it is general.
Therefore, semantical arguments are, in general, just, and the resolution is affirmed.

I await your contentions. Just don't try to pull anything stupid.
KritiKal

Con

We'll go line by line.

"Wrong. "In general," or "for the most part," means that I have to show that at least half of all semantical arguments are just. One counterexample will not be enough."

At least half is not "the MOST part" because it would be "the EQUAL part", thus you must prove >50%, or that in both circumstances you outline in your definition of semantical (one where there could potentially be abuse, and one where the resolution isn't defined) semantical arguments MUST be just.

"A man who does not bother to lock his doors deserves to be robbed, to teach him that he is foolish."

I don't understand the evaluative standard you use to make that claim. That's an assertion, please justify that or you can drop it. Moreover, you don't even refute the explanation I give you - that we're debating debate theory in the round, and thus use that as our calculus - so you can extend that cleanly. I think observation three holds true. Moreover, you don't explain this in your beginning framework.

"Your elephant example is unrealistic. It never happens on this site."

Irrelevant. You don't specify that as a necessary condition of semantical arguments to occur. Stop creating new framework rules, that's unfair.

"Furthermore, semantical arguments usually involve sourcing new definitions. Defining "just" as "animals" does not happen here."

Do you want to go ahead and redefine your position altogether? This is blatant abuse. As an aside to the voters:

mongeese's original parameters for the debate were:

Semantical: "a type of argument in which the Contender of a debate uses the fact that either the Instigator used a resolution that was easily abusable or the Instigator failed to define the resolution so that the Contender could take the debate away from the framer's intent." DO NOT LET HIM ADD: "that must be similar to debates that occur on debate.com, through the sourcing of new definitions" he is just voiding my entire speech by redefining the debate, if you let him do this then there isn't any purpose to debate because we can just redefine our arguments or positions. Perhaps the resolution actually says, "The holocaust is good!" well then OF COURSE you vote for me.

A QUICK EXTENSION:
"Note that this scenario simply means the resolution CAN be abused, he doesn't define that the resolution IS abused, so don't let him draw that conclusion later on." To clarify, I'm the impacts I draw later on are based on the FIRST scenario. So when he says:

"When the Contender accepts the debate, he has a share in this world, as well. If the Instigator does not define anything, that's just asking for the Contender to do it for him. The framer created a world in which he did not give definitions. This leaves the Contender to add his own."

1: he makes an assertion that the contender is allowed to restructure the world the framer gives, but that's just an assertion. I can choose to buy a Saab or a Jeep, but I am nowhere empowered once I buy a Saab to protest their use of a particular model type.

2: He says the framer didn't give definition, but that's not this particular scenario so you can IGNORE his refutation.

3: he MISSES THE IMPACT. I tell you that it is abusive because semantical arguments VOID THE ENTIRE FIRST SPEECH, thus giving an unfair amount of argumentation to the negative. HE IGNORES THIS, carry it through.

Next he says:

"Your example is ridiculous. High School Policy and alternative energy aren't linkable through definition. Semantical arguments use real definitions to their advantage. They take, "Humpty Dumpty was Pushed," and change it to, "The Force Known as Push in Physics Acted Upon Humpty Dumpty," not, "Cheese Tastes Good." Again, this is about general semantical arguments."

1: That avoids the impact entirely. The point is, you change the intent of the resolution which steals it away from it's original purpose, unfair to the instigator. His argument is irrelevant.

2: I already established that that form of rebuttal doesn't work, he's changing his definition.

3: There is no reason that "The force known as push in physics..." scenario is any different from the "Alternative energy to health care" scenario. Either way, you are changing the debate and invalidating the instigator's position.

Then, to the third impact:
"A man who leaves his house unlocked deserves to be robbed.
If a man starts a debate, and there is a man who can defeat him semantically, then the first man deserves to lose the debate, because there is a man who can beat him. Therefore, he deserves what he did not bother to prepare for."

1: WHY? This is an assertion. I don't really understand why leaving your door unlocked JUSTIFIES the violation of the inalienable right of property. If I don't wear a seatbelt do i DESERVE TO DIE? This is assertive logic, and if we accept it then we might as well kill people who don't wear helmets, seatbelts, kneepads, etc. You can't accept this, it is absurd.

"My opponent thinks there is a link between alternative energy and high school policy. If he can prove this with viable definitions, then sure, there's a link. However, I doubt that he can."

I was just saying some resolutions are intuitively understood and do not warrant definitions. I give the high school policy resolution as an example.

"Huh? By my definition of a semantical argument, only the Contender can use semantics. The only part an Instigator plays is when he fails to defend against semantics."

... where exactly do you say that. To date, your definition of semantical is:

Semantical: "an argument similar to those generally used on debate.org through the usage of sourced definitions, only implemented by the contender in the debate, that the instigator fails to defend against through offering a resolution that is not defined or lends itself easily to abuse, even though the instigator isn't the one abusing it because he isn't allowed."

Compared to your opening definition:

"a type of argument in which the Contender of a debate uses the fact that either the Instigator used a resolution that was easily abusable or the Instigator failed to define the resolution so that the Contender could take the debate away from the framer's intent."

There's a bit of a difference, don't you think?

"Why? Usually, a semantical argument stems from the lack of an opening argument by the Instigator."

"usually" is a blanket statement, I don't think you can justify that. In the hundred of debate.org debates that utilize semantics, I DOUBT that you empirically conclude that "usually" this occurs. This isn't a sound argument, it's fallacious in nature. Because one example (or three!) exists, it doesn't mean MOST circumstances in which semantics are utilized is where the instigator fails to define.

Finally, your argument:

"1. If a man does not bother to defend against something, he deserves to be attacked by it, to teach him not to be so ignorant as to not acknowledge it."

this is an assertion, but you can cross apply my reasoning earlier: should we kill people who don't wear seatbelts?

"2. If a man starts a debate, and there exists a man who can accept the debate and defeat the first man semantically, then that man deserved to lose. Therefore, he deserved the argument used against him. Therefore, he deserved the semantical argument. Therefore, the semantical argument was just. This is what usually happens with semantical arguments, so it is general."

This argument is only justified if the 1st is, and the first isn't so whatever.

VOTERS:

1: Mongeese's framework is abusive, he constantly redefines to avoid my arguments. Don't let him do that, he is trying to void my case by simply changing his position.

2: He only asserts what "deserved" is, but he can't justify that, it doesn't make sense.

3/4: My issues w/ abuse that i outline in my case of semantics args (out of room, can't elaborate)

NEGATE
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

Okay, my opponent is clearly missing something.

In general, semantical arguers do NOT make extreme changes to the resolution without definitions.

In general, semantical arguers accept a debate in which the Instigator failed to give an opening speech, so the Contender can take the debate in a different direction with semantics.

"Irrelevant. You don't specify that as a necessary condition of semantical arguments to occur. Stop creating new framework rules, that's unfair."
You will never see a semantical argument without the Contender using real definitions.
In general, the semantical argument will include sourced definitions, not un-sourced definitions.
"In general" means that it is, for the most part, just. Saying that there are a few situations that would never happen in which it isn't just doesn't work.

"Do you want to go ahead and redefine your position altogether? This is blatant abuse."
Redefine? No. However, you're missing the point here.
There are far more semantical arguments that use sourced definitions than ones that don't.
Where would these semantical arguments involving Instigator and Contender occur besides Debate.org?

"Perhaps the resolution actually says, "The holocaust is good!" well then OF COURSE you vote for me."
Can you link my resolution to "The holocaust is good!"?

"...he makes an assertion that the contender is allowed to restructure the world the framer gives, but that's just an assertion. I can choose to buy a Saab or a Jeep, but I am nowhere empowered once I buy a Saab to protest their use of a particular model type."
Debates are different from economic transactions. In economic transactions, both members cooperate. This doesn't hold true in debate.

"He says the framer didn't give definition, but that's not this particular scenario so you can IGNORE his refutation."
In general, that's what happens in the case of a semantical argument.

" he MISSES THE IMPACT. I tell you that it is abusive because semantical arguments VOID THE ENTIRE FIRST SPEECH, thus giving an unfair amount of argumentation to the negative. HE IGNORES THIS, carry it through."
My opponent cites unrealistic examples that, in general, don't ever happen. By the "in general," it becomes irrelevant.

"That avoids the impact entirely. The point is, you change the intent of the resolution which steals it away from it's[sic] original purpose, unfair to the instigator. His argument is irrelevant."
You claim that there are semantical arguments that don't use sourced definitions. Prove it.

"I already established that that form of rebuttal doesn't work, he's changing his definition."
I'm not changing the definition. You're just thinking about what isn't there. Most semantical arguments involve the Instigator leaving no opening speech, and the Contender accepting and introducing new, SOURCED definitions.

"3: There is no reason that 'The force known as push in physics...' scenario is any different from the 'Alternative energy to health care' scenario. Either way, you are changing the debate and invalidating the instigator's position."
One is sane. The other isn't. One has happened. The other never will. There are two huge differences, right there.

"I was just saying some resolutions are intuitively understood and do not warrant definitions. I give the high school policy resolution as an example."
High school policy. There are a lot of things that could be called high school policy. What about their lunch policy? What about their finals policy? Wikipedia doesn't even have a high school policy page. That's far too vague for most people to understand.

"... where exactly do you say that."
My definition clearly states that the Contender uses the Instigator's failure to take steps against semantics to use semantics. The Contender is the one that uses semantics. It's in the definition.

Besides the mentioning of Debate.org and sourced definitions (which do, in general, exist for a semantical argument), they ARE the same definition.

"In the hundred of debate.org debates that utilize semantics, I DOUBT that you empirically conclude that 'usually' this occurs. This isn't a sound argument, it's fallacious in nature. Because one example (or three!) exists, it doesn't mean MOST circumstances in which semantics are utilized is where the instigator fails to define."
I showed three debates for my case. Can you show three debates against my case? I'll provide even more:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Now you need six examples to prove me wrong.

"This argument is only justified if the 1st is, and the first isn't so whatever."
Wrong. This argument is independent from the first argument. It is an argument about debate.

My point #2 went unchallenged. It has been conceded.
"2. If a man starts a debate, and there exists a man who can accept the debate and defeat the first man semantically, then that man deserved to lose. Therefore, he deserved the argument used against him. Therefore, he deserved the semantical argument. Therefore, the semantical argument was just. This is what usually happens with semantical arguments, so it is general."

"1: Mongeese's framework is abusive, he constantly redefines to avoid my arguments. Don't let him do that, he is trying to void my case by simply changing his position."
Wrong. My opponent uses examples that cannot happen. They obviously don't apply.

"2: He only asserts what 'deserved' is, but he can't justify that, it doesn't make sense."
Point 2 went unchallenged...

"3/4: My issues w/ abuse that i[sic] outline in my case of semantics args[sic] (out of room, can't elaborate)"
Most semantical arguments involve the Instigator failing to do anything except start the debate, allowing the Contender to have almost full control over the debate, provided he use sources.

AFFIRM

My opponent uses ridiculous examples that don't happen.

"2. If a man starts a debate, and there exists a man who can accept the debate and defeat the first man semantically, then that man deserved to lose. Therefore, he deserved the argument used against him. Therefore, he deserved the semantical argument. Therefore, the semantical argument was just. This is what usually happens with semantical arguments, so it is general.
Therefore, semantical arguments are, in general, just, and the resolution is affirmed."
This point was attacked falsely, because it had no connection to Point 1. Therefore, it is conceded. The resolution is conceded and affirmed. Vote PRO.
KritiKal

Con

This is round three, so I'll just recap our positions, and how the arguments stand. This will be similar to if I went down a flow and made extensions etc.

We'll start with an overview:

The framer not defining the resolution is not a necessary precondition of a semantical argument being in place, as by your own definition of semantical. (Read the caps.)

"a type of argument in which the Contender of a debate USES THE FACT THAT EITHER THE INSTIGATOR USED A RESOLUTION THAT WAS EASILY ABUSABLE OR the Instigator failed to define the resolution so that the Contender could take the debate away from the framer's intent."

Either / Or implies that both scenarios are examples of semantical arguments, and not that both of them have to exist simultaneously. You can ignore what he tells you about "most semantical arguments involve failed to define" because his own definition says that only 50% of them do.

That said, observations:

II. I only need to prove that in one of the scenarios he gives (failed to define OR easily abusable) it isn't just, because that would mean that they are not just "for the most part". He drops this observation.

III. You evaluate what is deserved based on abuse etc, that is the only legitimate weighing calculus because we are debating DEBATE THEORY, he doesn't respond to this ever just asserts his own logic. Extend it through. You vote for whoever can prove abuse, or can prove that their opponent's advocacy demeans debate.

His arguments for "they have to plausible definitions that occur frequently" can be dropped, because:

1: isn't established in his opening case where he framed the debate. If you accept his redefinition then you invalidate my opening position and i have to write an entire new one if i want to even catch up. That's abusive, he's getting more ground here than he ought to. Think links into the weighing calculus i give in observation three, so this is the first reason to vote for me.

2: He doesn't refute any of my logic, his rebuttals are blippy at best he just basically says, "you can ignore it because they have to do with ridiculous scenarios" but that's not what I say at all, I give that as a general observation that was utilized as an independent spike, saying that by affirming you're saying semantical arguments in any resolution are just. I say that ANY RESOLUTION CAN EASILY BE ABUSED BY A TWIST IN WORDPLAY. This means that ALL resolutions fall under his first scenario. For example:

Semantical - his definition
are - to be
in general - for the most part
just - only

Those are legit definitions of all the words, and one could make the argument that semantical arguments are not for the most part the only arguments you can make so you would negate. This isn't a reason to vote for me, only his advocacy can then be extended to every debate.

3: "My opponent cites unrealistic examples that, in general, don't ever happen. By the "in general," it becomes irrelevant."

... did you even read the argument? Here's what i'm saying, spelled out cleanly:

The instigator opens with a case, structured around his definitions (as per your first scenario) or with no definitions. Either way, he gives you an argument.

The contender changes the world the resolution presents, invalidating the ground the instigator stood on. This gives the contender extra-time to refute etc, as they have the opening speech AND the ending speech. THIS IS ABUSIVE. He doesn't attack that at all, his arguments are irrelevant anyways bc my abuse impacts apply to every single type of semantical argument. Extend it. Second reason you vote for me.

4: As for my 2nd impact, the "topic choice" one, he says: "You claim that there are semantical arguments that don't use sourced definitions. Prove it."

This doesn't refute what I say at all... if you, the judges, comprehend the argument then you realize that he drops it - extend that across also. For those who don't, i'll highlight it:

1: The framer has a mind to debate a specific topic, thus he establishes the debate resolution to fit what he wants to talk about. He doesn't know who his contender is, but he knows that he wants to debate X with him.
2: The contender has the CHOICE to debate that topic or not, by agreeing to debate he accepts the instigator's topic. By CHANGING THE PARAMETERS, the contender takes the debate from it's intentions and towards his own (as per the definition of semantical) which means that while the framer had NO CHOICE BUT TO DEBATE THE TOPIC HE GIVES, THE CONTENDER CAN EITHER DEBATE THE TOPIC, OR HIS SKEWED INTERPRETATION OF IT. This is CLEAR abuse, it gives the contender unlimited ground in the debate.

""I was just saying some resolutions are intuitively understood and do not warrant definitions. I give the high school policy resolution as an example."
High school policy. There are a lot of things that could be called high school policy. What about their lunch policy? What about their finals policy? Wikipedia doesn't even have a high school policy page. That's far too vague for most people to understand."

Hahahaha.

"I showed three debates for my case. Can you show three debates against my case? I'll provide even more...Now you need six examples to prove me wrong."

1: I don't need six examples to prove you wrong. If I stare at a highway and three jeep cherokees pass me by i don't assume all cars are jeep cherokees until i see further proof. That's fallacious logic.
2: It's irrelevant to my case harms either way.
3: your definition of semantical gives you two scenarios anyways... and considering the first one can easily be applied to every resolution ever, I think it's fair to say that the first scenario is far more likely.

VOTERS:

First, his voter:

"My point #2 went unchallenged. It has been conceded."

Your point #2 was predicated on the assumption #1 existed. I attacked #1 to invalidate #2. #2 is like: "If someone can beat you with some abusive as hell tricky argument that undermines the purpose of debate, then you deserve to lose on that, therefore you deserve the semantical argument"

Let's point out the problems!

1: At the point where I win observation three, this definition doesn't even link into the established weighing calculus for the round so you can drop it entirely. This is the most important reason you negate.

2: It's absurd. Basically he says: "if there is a way I can win, regardless of abuse, then you deserve to lose" which means that theoretically if you start a debate, I could go to your house and beat you to death so that you forfeit all of your rounds, and that is DESERVED because I could win. I don't buy that.

My Voters:

1: He is abusively redefining his framework and shifting his advocacy in the debate in order to avoid potential flaws with his definitions or position. He attempts to undermine all of my offense through that, that's unfair, don't let him do that, thus you negate.

2: he has no offense, because at the point where I win Observation III where I tell you WE CAN ONLY VOTE ON ABUSE then his cases doesn't link in AT ALL.

3: I tell you that redefining the resolution through semantical arguments is ABUSIVE as it INVALIDATES the first speech given by the instigator. This point is NOT addressed, it doesn't matter the extent to the semantics as long as they take the debate away from the framer's intent (WHICH HIS OWN DEFINITION SAYS) the impact carries through. He dropped this argument.

4: Also he dropped this argument. I'll quote myself from round one: "It gives the one utilizing the semantics argument an unfair advantage because while the framer's resolution existed before the contender could take it, the contender's alternate reality only began to exist within the round itself, so the framer was forced to take it."

Clear abuse, regardless of how you define it (it fits the humpty dumpty example fine)

Four reasons to negate, one blippy one to affirm:

NE
Debate Round No. 3
60 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
Mango farming wouldn't affirm the resolution.

My logical sequence of events would affirm the resolution.

Affirming the resolution is my goal.
Posted by KritiKal 8 years ago
KritiKal
...

if we establish the lens by which we evaluate to be the round as the one which better protects human life (or whatever other evaluative standard you choose), then if you provide a contention about MANGO FARMING, then obviously it can be thrown out.

In the same manner, when establishing that we're debating "debate theory", we ought to consider the most important thing in debate: fairness. Thus, my standard that I establish is that whichever side can better prove fairness would be the one that wins.

You could've contested the standard, by arguing that there are no standards, but you didn't do so. At the point where the standard carries through, your argument is shifted outside the realm of applicable material and you lose your offense.

It's is pretty clear.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
You argued that my definition didn't have what it did.

It cleary mentioned the Contender and the Instigator, and how the Instigator fails to defend from semantics, and the Contender then uses this.

"2: Your one piece of ground, even if you ignore the logical flaws, is thus shifted outside the realm of vote-worthy material, because it doesn't link in."
There are no logical flaws. If there are, you failed to point them out.
It was a contention, which automatically links in.
Posted by KritiKal 8 years ago
KritiKal
Do you understand how to evaluate debate rounds, at all? 1 statement =/= you affirm on face.

1 statement, even if it's won, = the affirmative has solid ground he is winning. At the point where I establish:

1: The legitimate ground to vote off of is that which ties back into abuse (and this standard is EXTENDED)
2: Your one piece of ground, even if you ignore the logical flaws, is thus shifted outside the realm of vote-worthy material, because it doesn't link in.
3: I provide 3 links into abuse, one from you in round, 2 from just the nature of semantical arguments.

The decision is clear cut.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
I used one logical statement to affirm the resolution.

You thought it relied on a previous statement.

It didn't.

The resolution, therefore, was affirmed.

It was independent from the system, but it didn't matter, because logic trumps.
Posted by KritiKal 8 years ago
KritiKal
At the point where you dropped my evaluative framework, it's irrelevant because it didn't link in to the system that was established for viewing the round. Like, I set up:

"We should weigh X in the round; it is the most important criterion for assessing the winner because of Y"

and you say:

"Z is deserved because I say."
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
"(Position before, conduct, grammar and sources are all meaningless if you are logically disproven)"
You don't entirely understand the voting system here.
BEFORE and AFTER have no effect on points.
CONDUCT is one point.
S/G is one point.
C A is three points.
SOURCES is two points.

And no, they're not irrelevant.

Plus, I was the one with a logical approach that was never countered, because it didn't rely on the first point.
Posted by KritiKal 8 years ago
KritiKal
while you asserted your own*
Posted by KritiKal 8 years ago
KritiKal
You dropped my round evaluation standard entirely, while you asserted you one, and you missed the logic behind both of my abuse points entirely.

You just strawmanned or ignored my case, it's not a vote-bomb. Moreover, the abuse harms carried through to both scenarios you give (I state that in my opening case) so I don't really see how you'd vote in a different manner.

If I had to categorize it, I think:

Before: should never be voted on because it's entirely irrelevant and gives someone an unfair bias point advantage second.

After: that's your preference, but I think Mongeese you need some better warrants for your claims.

Conduct: Irrelevant and tied.

Spelling and grammar: Also irrelevant, but I suppose that one accidental pluralization is fine to vote on?

Convincing arguments: Same as after.

Sources: Sources weren't a problem in the debate, because it was a theoretical discussion based on your established framework, but whatever you could still feasibly give that to mongeese.

Either way, I think it should go:

2 Pro / 2 Con (Pro wins the irrelevant stuff.)
Tied on conduct.

Then it comes down to who you agree with "before" the debate.

Although I think whoever wins deserves all 7 points, the other system is ridiculous because you can theoretically win on stuff irrelevant to argument.

(Position before, conduct, grammar and sources are all meaningless if you are logically disproven)
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
This is bound to turn into another vote-bomb war...

*heavy sigh*

At least I put a TIED on Conduct.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
mongeeseKritiKalTied
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 studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
mongeeseKritiKalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
mongeeseKritiKalTied
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 fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
mongeeseKritiKalTied
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 Clockwork 8 years ago
Clockwork
mongeeseKritiKalTied
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 rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
mongeeseKritiKalTied
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 mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
mongeeseKritiKalTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
mongeeseKritiKalTied
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:23 
Vote Placed by Conor 8 years ago
Conor
mongeeseKritiKalTied
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