The Instigator
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points

Semantics lovers, this debate is for you

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 12/21/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,815 times Debate No: 6296
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (9)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

I believe that the topic is clear and thus see no need to define it. However, I reserve the right to disagree with my opponent's rendering of it at any time.

Given that I would not wish to spoil a debate such as this by offering arguments in my first round , I shall allow my opponent to make the initial arguments.
beem0r

Con

Howdy Logical-Master, and all of you as well.

Time for some definitions.
Debate is used as a noun in the resolution.

Debate (n.):
1. A formal discussion in a public meeting or legislature, in which opposing arguments are presented.
2. An argument.

Source: http://www.askoxford.com...

Argument (n.):
1. A heated exchange of diverging or opposite views. [Example: I got into an argument with my landlord]
2. A set of reasons given in support of something. [Example: Here is my argument for abortion]

Source: http://www.askoxford.com...

Both definitions of the word 'debate' use the word 'argument.' The first definition of 'debate' uses the second definition of 'argument,' since the first definition does not make sense when applied. The second definition of 'debate' uses the first definition of 'argument.'Here is why:
Note that I gave usage examples for each of the definitions of 'argument.' Since the second definition of 'debate' is simply "an argument," we should be able to replace '[an] argument' with '[a] debate] in any definitions that are correct. Here is what we end up with.

Debate (n.):
2.1. A heated exchange of diverging or opposite views. [Example: I got into a debate with my landlord.]
2.2. A set of reasons given in support of something. [Example: A debate for abortion is that a fetus is not capable of pain.]

Note that while the usage for 2.1 makes sense, the usage for 2.2 does not make sense. The second definition of debate therefore is referring to the first definition of argument. QED.

This cannot be defined as a debate by either definition, thus 'this debate' means nothing, thus the resolution is false.

And with that, I will allow Logical-Master to do his thing.
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

Greetings to my opponent. Let us begin this grand debate.

First, I would like to point out that I am in complete acceptance of the contender's definitions.

TO PACIFY CON's ARGUMENT: Now, CON's entire round is based on the notion that since the resolution means nothing, that it is false. Even if I am to agree with the notion that the resolution is meaningless, this does nothing to assure victory for the contender and his conclusion is merely nothing more than usage of the non sequitur fallacy. Let us keep in mind that "this debate" meaning nothing can make the resolution appear as if it is saying "Semantics lovers, nothing is for you." Given that my opponent is a semantics lover and that he came into this debate knowingly getting nothing, I'd say CON has only proven the resolution true and has hence won me the debate.

That said, even though I don't have to, I shall refute CON's actual argument anyway.

RE:"Both definitions of the word 'debate' use the word 'argument.' The first definition of 'debate' uses the second definition of 'argument,' since the first definition does not make sense when applied.

The first definition makes plenty of sense (contrary to the words of CON). This is technically a public meeting between us (one which we are presenting opposing arguments) given that this website is accessible to public and can be seen by the public which is the residents of debate.org.

RE: "Note that while the usage for 2.1 makes sense, the usage for 2.2 does not make sense. The second definition of debate therefore is referring to the first definition of argument. QED."

This is incorrect. The second definition of debate is indeed sensible. If we are to consider "for" as 'revolving around", then "a fetus is not capable of pain" would be no different than a formal debate resolution. For instance, they have Resolved: It is just to counter domestic violence with lethal force. This is merely one side of the the arguments presented, yet is considered the debate. To make use of my opponent's example, it would be "Resolved: During abortion, a fetus is not capable of pain." Proving or disproving this notion could lead one to conclude whether or not abortion is in fact acceptable/unacceptable. Basically, this goes to show that AFF statements can be considered as being "the" debate.

Lastly, I place two cards face down and end my turn.
beem0r

Con

====
Logical Master said. . .
> First, I would like to point out that I am in complete acceptance of the contender's definitions.

I say. . .
>Alright. I will remember that.

====
Logical-Master said. . .
>Even if I am to agree with the notion that the resolution is meaningless, this does nothing to assure victory for the contender and his conclusion is merely nothing more than usage of the non sequitur fallacy. Let us keep in mind that "this debate" meaning nothing can make the resolution appear as if it is saying "Semantics lovers, nothing is for you."

I say. . .
>It is like telling a person "you enjoy unicorn stew." That's a positive claim, and it cannot be true unless that person truly enjoys unicorn stew. If that person does not enjoy anything, the fact that unicorn stew does not exist does not make the claim true. In fact, the claim is false as a rule, since it is impossible to enjoy unicorn stew. In this same way, 'this debate' can't be for semantics lovers if 'this debate' doesn't exist, since it is a positive claim that relies on the existence of 'this debate' and that it is for semantics lovers.

====
Logical-Master said. . .
>Given that my opponent is a semantics lover and that he came into this debate knowingly getting nothing, I'd say CON has only proven the resolution true and has hence won me the debate.

I say. . .
>Ha...!
I'm not sure where Logical-Master is getting his information, but I don't love semantics.

====
Logical-Master said. . .
>"[Quote from me]. The first definition makes plenty of sense (contrary to the words of CON). This is technically a public meeting between us (one which we are presenting opposing arguments) given that this website is accessible to public and can be seen by the public which is the residents of debate.org.

I say. . .
>I think L-M may have misunderstood me. I was simply pointing out that the first definition of argument made no sense when applied to the use of 'argument' in the first definition of debate. That's a fact my L-M has agreed with me on. I defined Debate as using the second definition of argument in its first definition, and using the first definintion in its second. As my opponent said. . . [> First, I would like to point out that I am in complete acceptance of the contender's definitions."
> It seems L-M is not disagreeing with my definition in this statement, he is simply trying to say that this is a debate by the first definition: "A formal discussion in a public meeting or legislature, in which opposing arguments are presented."
First, our discussion is not formal, it is casual. We can speak to one another however we wish, in however unorganized a manner we wish.
Second, we're hardly meeting. If we were meeting, we'd actually be here at the same time, rather than several hours, if not days, apart.

====
Logical-Master said. . .
>[Definition 2.2 applies for debate, and can be applied to this discussion...] Basically, this goes to show that AFF statements can be considered as being "the" debate.

I say. . .
>Though I've explained why I think that's unlikely to be true, you may be right there. I suppose people can believe whatever definitions seem best to them [2.1 or 2.2, though it's unlikely definition 2 was meant to mean both]. Still, I'd suggest L-M attempt to show why the AFF statements in this discussion are for semantics lovers. Let me remind you of this remark he gave in round 1, and his opening remark of round 2.
R1: "I believe that the topic is clear and thus see no need to define it."
R2: "First, I would like to point out that I am in complete acceptance of the contender's definitions."
That's hardly the type of stuff semantics lovers should enjoy.

And with that, I'll come back in a few days to check on this discussion, see if L-M's leaves me anything while I'm not around.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

Logical-Master forfeited this round.
beem0r

Con

Logical-Master, as you may very well have noticed, forfeited last round. He left a comment claiming that he was sure that he hit 'submit' with 10 seconds or so remaining. Unfortunate for him, I suppose. Perhaps he should have been a little more responsible, and responded with more than 10 seconds to go. That's assuming he even did have 10 seconds to go - he may be lying for your sympathy, having accidentally missed the deadline entirely. In any case, I will be treating this as if L-M did forfeit last round, since that is what the site has told me.

Still, in the spirit of good conversation, I'll go ahead and respond to some of his statements made in the comment section. I am responding not because I need to, but because I want to correct some of the more blatant lies L-M is feeding you. Thus, I will only be responding to some of L-M's statements.

====
"Semantics Lovers"
L-M supposes that I didn't bring up 'semantics lovers' because I know that I am one. This is false. I did not bring it up because it is unclear to whom L-M is referring. He obviously is not referring solely to the contender [me], since 'semantics lovers' is plural. In other news, I don't really even like semantics, though I am forced to sometimes use semantics on this site. Even so, if I was a semantics lover, I could still not be the 'semantics lovers' referred to in the topic of this discussion.

With that said, L-M has still failed to show who he is referring to as 'semantics lovers' and just how this debate is for them.

It's not really relevant to our discussion at this point, but what the heck, I'll go ahead and address L-M's claims about me being a semantics lover. He gives two supposed pieces of evidence.
===
1. I said 'tempting' in the comment section here.
>Note that this has nothing to do with semantics.
===
2. I didn't address the 'semantics lovers' part of L-M's claim earlier in the debate.
>This is because I didn't need to, and because it was his responsibility to explain what it is he is claiming. I was simply waiting for him to do just that.

====
"This debate"
1. I do think L-M has sufficiently explained why he thinks this is a debate. This discussion could not be called a 'heated' exchange of opposing views, nor is it a _formal_ discussion in a _public_ _meeting_. This poses a problem for both definitions of 'debate.'
==
D1: "A formal discussion in a public meeting or legislature, in which opposing arguments are presented."
a. This discussion is not formal.
b. Debate.org is a private website, requiring membership for the use of its services.
c. This discussion is not a meeting. Even if L-M and myself are sometimes online at the same time, it is unlikely that we have even once been on this page at the same time. Even so, such a thing is hardly a meeting. I'm sure there has been a time when both myself and L-M were on www.google.com, but it's nonsense to call that a 'meeting.' To be a meeting, we would have to meet each other there.
==
D2.1: "A heated exchange of diverging or opposite views."
a. This discussion is not heated. This is evidenced by the lack of entusiasm from either side. L-M showed so little enthusiasm, he tried to post the previous round 10 seconds less than three days after I posted my last round. I've shown little enthusiasm as well - like L-M points out in his comments, I didn't even point out the problem with the first part of my opponent's claim, "semantics lovers," when I am known for attacking a resolution in every way possible.

And since "this debate" is nonexistant, my opponent's claim is quite similar to "Semantics lovers, freckled unicorns from the planet Xiphos are for you." Something cannot 'be for semantics lovers' if that thing cannot even 'be.' For X to be for Y, X must be at all first.

Anyway, I guess it's time to wrap this up. Maybe L-M will make it in time to make some closing statements, well as explain just who these mysterious "semantics lovers" are, and why 'this debate,' whatever that is, is for them.
Debate Round No. 3
Logical-Master

Pro

RE forfeit: The reason behind me posting my round in the comment section was entirely to demonstrate that I do not acknowledge the previous round as a forfeit or a mistake on my part and never will. That said, you're free to consider it as a forfeit if you don't believe me.

=====
beem0r said . . .

>L-M supposes that I didn't bring up 'semantics lovers' because I know that I am one. This is false. I did not bring it up because it is unclear to whom L-M is referring.

I say . . .

> In spite of saying that I believed the topic was clear enough, I stated nothing that would attempt to clarify the actual topic. Thus, "semantics lovers" is truly no less clear than the "this debate is for you" part." In addition, as suggested by the terms in my R1, I gave full permission for my opponent to interpret the topic in whatever way he chooses.

====
beem0r said . . .

>He obviously is not referring solely to the contender [me], since 'semantics lovers' is plural.

I say . . .

> No, I'm not referring solely to my opponent. I'm referring to semantics lovers. As I stated at the end of my seemingly forfeited round, I meant this debate to be for those who love semantics. What my opponent seems to misunderstand is that him being a semantics lover would devastate his position. Basically, he (if we are to conclude that he is a semantics lover) chose to join this debate out of his own free will, thus not only provides evidence that this debate is in fact for semantics lovers (a semantics lover joining a debate which is meant to determine whether or not it is for semantics lovers), but unknowingly conceded to the topic itself, given that he joined, hence acknowledging the topic as being true. In other words, my opponent lost the debate the moment he clicked the "accept" button.

====
beem0r said . . .

>In other news, I don't really even like semantics, though I am forced to sometimes use semantics on this site. Even so, if I was a semantics lover, I could still not be the 'semantics lovers' referred to in the topic of this discussion.

I say . . .

My opponent has told an obvious lie here. Given that we are debating in THIS debate, let us look at the definition of semantics: http://www.askoxford.com...

Given that "meaning" of the logic and/or linguistics is what all debates concern, we can conclude that my opponent always uses semantics. Thus, this could merely comes down to whether or not my opponent loves debate. If you'll note his profile, you shall see that he has debated within 126 debates on this website called Debate.org In addition, he even includes debating as one of his activities. Now if we look back to the credible definition of love which we noted in the previous round (http://www.askoxford.com... ), you'll note that "showing great care" is considered love. Given that 126 debates is obvious evidence that beem0r shows great care of debating as well as the fact that he has responded as early as possible on each of the rounds of this debate, it is more likely that not that beem0r is in FACT a debate lover (which would make him a semantics lover as well, given that all debates revolve around the aforementioned definition).

In terms of not being one of the semantics lovers referred to in the topic, the topic just says semantics lovers. In other words, lovers of semantics. As you can see , there is no specific group of semantics lovers which is being referred to.

====
beem0r said . . .

"1. I said 'tempting' in the comment section here.
>Note that this has nothing to do with semantics."

I say . . .

> I beg to differ. At the time my opponent made that comment, the only material available on this page was this debate. No one else had made a comment, ergo, this debate could have been the only thing he was referring to (more likely than not anyway). Given that this debate was directed at semantics lovers and that my opponent provided no objection to being a semantics lover in this comment, that he made a claim that is used by those who show deep lust or charm towards something (tempting) it can be concluded that he acknowledged himself as a semantics lover. Further evidence of this fact is that his first round consist of nothing more than usage of semantics. And once more, NO OBJECTION to being a semantics lover. The evidence is strongly against my opponent.

====
beem0r said . . .

> I didn't address the 'semantics lovers' part of L-M's claim earlier in the debate.
>This is because I didn't need to, and because it was his responsibility to explain what it is he is claiming. I was simply waiting for him to do just that.

I say . . .

> True, but beem0r did not need to address ANYTHING. Thus, it comes off as strange that he'd willingly address one thing without addressing the other. Why not just insist that I clarify?

====
beem0r said . . .

> This discussion could not be called a 'heated' exchange of opposing views, nor is it a _formal_ discussion in a _public_ _meeting_.

I say . . .

>Indeed, it can be called "heated" exchange of opposing views. My opponent has asserted that I am a liar and am simply trying to gain sympathy with my so-called forfeit in the previous round. I have insinuated that my opponent is a liar in claiming that he rarely uses semantics in spite of using semantics in all of his debates (given that semantics are what debates revolve around). Both of these comments can be considering heated, therefore that definition is fulfilled. In terms of whether or not this is formal, I'll get to that below.

====
beem0r said . . .

>a. This discussion is not formal.
b. Debate.org is a private website.
c. This discussion is not a meeting. Even if L-M and myself are sometimes online at the same time, it is unlikely that we have even once been on this page at the same time. Even so, such a thing is hardly a meeting. I'm sure there has been a time when both myself and L-M were on www.google.com, but it's nonsense to call that a 'meeting.' To be a meeting, we would have to meet each other there.

I say . . .

a. Reiterating what I said in response to CON's terms of a formal debated: It is a fact that we cannot speak to one another in however way we wish. This is proven based on the fact that we are limited to 8000 characters in each round as well as the fact that there are certain words which this website will not allow. Also there are means at which this debate can be taken down based on how we act/speak. In other words, this is clearly a formal debate.

b. It may be private in terms of members being able to debate, but is quite public in terms of members being able to see these debates. As long as we can be seen publicly, it is considered public.

c. First, both my opponent and myself have most likely on this page at the same time during this debate. This can be seen in the comment sections when I had twice responded to him quickly after he had commented. Second, using this definition of meeting ( http://www.askoxford.com... ), it merely has to be a "coming togehter" or two or more people. We are two or more people and we are clearly associating with one another via this website (hence the coming together), ergo, this is a meeting.

====
beem0r said . . .

>"This discussion is not heated because of the lack of enthusiasm"

I say . . .

Enthusiasm has nothing to do with being "heated." Heated merely concerns content of the discussion. As I've shown above, FIERCE attacks have been used by both sides, hence making the discussion "heated."

====
beem0r said . . .

>Something cannot 'be for semantics lovers' if that thing cannot even 'be.' For X to be for Y, X must be at all first.

I say . . .

>To reiterate what I've said previously, nothing is in fact something (a concept). Given that one is perfectly capable of receiving nothing (like a lonely orphan's christmas), there is nothing illogical about CON getting
beem0r

Con

beem0r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fo-shizzle 8 years ago
fo-shizzle
*think
Posted by fo-shizzle 8 years ago
fo-shizzle
you took this way too seriously beem0r. still this debate was quite interesting and hilarious, as such are most debates involving logical-master. Although beem0r had some pretty good arguments, in the end i thibk Logical-master is the victor
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Ha...!
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Next time, I'll try to speak in a way that is comprehensible and favorable towards the "Not saying'ist" here. ;)
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Well, I didn't read your round yet, but I probably would have just went back over the same points, clarified some things.

Made an argument for why this exchange isn't heated [probably would have involved looking up heated], addressed and counter anything you said about this being formal, address and counter anything you said about this being public rather than private. Explained again that definition 2.2 of debate is not colloquially what a debate refers to, and that dictonaries tend to mean one sense of a word when they use it in a definition, rather than two completely different uses of a word.

Once again brought up the point about the resolution automatically being false if "this debate" does not exist. Possibly more analogies to make sure people get it.

Addressed anything you did to show that this is for semantics lovers, and/or explained that you have failed in explaining exactly for whom this supposed debate is for [since even if I was one, I would only be a singular semantics lover, and you need at least two].

And that's probably it.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
NOOOOOOOOOO! Could you give me a gist of what you would have said in response to my last round?
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Whoa. That last word should say "nothing." And then there should be a line saying "Thanks for the debate. Vote PRO (mainly because CON said I won the moment he accepted)." Something like that.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Hey-O
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Also, I shall be wearing a blind fold and shall inject myself a serum designed to have me hallucinate.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
5 bucks says I shall type out my whole round and get it in before this is declared a forfeit.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con couldn't manage to rebut pro's last arguments
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 3 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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