The Instigator
ADHDavid
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The title of this debate does not have the word "Of" Inside the word "It"

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: 9/4/2015 Category: Fashion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 618 times Debate No: 79386
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

ADHDavid

Pro

Hi! First round acceptance only, nothing else. If you do anything besides accept in the first round, it is a forfeiture.
Lexus

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
ADHDavid

Pro

Well, as you can see, the word "It" In the title has a clear lacking of the two letters "O" and "F", which form the word of. Becuase of this, the word "Of" cannot possibly exist inside the word "It" This is my argument, and it is fact.

http://www.debate.org...;
Lexus

Con

I will show you, ladies and gentlemen, that the word "of" is inside of the word "it" - but first it is critical to define what a word REALLY is. The Reference Dictionary says that a word is "a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation...". This means that I can win this debate if I prove one of two things: either the sounds of letters of "of" is inside "it" (which is impossible to do via typing) or I have to show that the written representations of these sounds of "of" is inside "it" (this is possible). Below, I will highlight my evidence that shows that the written representations of the word "it" are around the word "of".

The title of this debate does not have the word "Of" Inside the word "It".

As you can see, I bolded two letters - the written representations of the word "it" - as well as the word "of". Of is within the boundaries set by the written representations of "it", thus I have shown that "of" is inside of "it" - and the resolution says that I must show that this is true. This debate is not whether or not "it" is a meaningful word that is surrounding the word "of" - I must just show that it does in fact bound it.

As some internet legends say, "gg." Thank you, vote con.


[1]. http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
ADHDavid

Pro

Con said: "I will show you, ladies and gentlemen, that the word "of" is inside of the word "it" - but first it is critical to define what a word REALLY is."

it's not really critical to define what a word really is, a word is something that exists in the context of a language, and it is used to define, explain, and name certain things, along with altering the meaning of other words. This has nothing to do with this debate, as all Con has to do is prove that the word "Of" Is inside the word "It".


Con said: "The Reference Dictionary says that a word is: "a unit of language, consisting of one or more spokensounds or their written representation...". This means that I can win this debate if I prove one of two things: either the sounds of letters of "of" is inside "it"


Con claims that he can win this debate if he can prove that the sounds of the letters of the word exist inside the word itself. This is different than proving that the word itself is inside of "It". Since qoutation marks are around "It", and inside is refering to "It", then Con would have to prove that the word "Of" is inside the written form of "It". It is not refering to the sound, as you do not need a sound to make a word, only knowledge of what the word means. *Sign language is an example of a language that has no sound attributed to it.
*
Since the sound of the word has nothing to do with the debate, as I specifically mentioned the title of this debate, adding sound to your argument is both off topic and therefore irrelevant.


Con said:" or I have to show that the written representations of these sounds of "of" is inside "it" (this is possible). Below, I will highlight my evidence that shows that the written representations of the word "it" are around the word "of"."

Again, sound has nothing to do with this debate, as the title of the debate is not oral, but it is written (Or typed if you will).
Written representations of sounds has nothing to do with words. That might sound confusing, but I can prove this. The word "There" has a drastically different meaning than the word "they're". Since the two words are spoken exactly the same way orally, they cannot be distiguished by themselves, meaning that a word has different meanings when spoken orally. This debate only has to do with the written representations, and not sound, therefore refutting Cons points.

Con said: "The title of this debate does not have the word "Of" Inside the word "It"."

I'm going to assume that con meant to qoute the title, in which case he should've added qoutes. I will not count this as him refuting his own point, as I merely think it is a mistake.


Con said: "As you can see, I bolded two letters - the written representations of the word "it" - as well as the word "of". Of is within the boundaries set by the written representations of "it", thus I have shown that "of" is inside of "it" - and the resolution says that I must show that this is true. This debate is not whether or not "it" is a meaningful word that is surrounding the word "of" - I must just show that it does in fact bound it."

Con states that the word "of" is bound by the word "it". It is not, as the two words are merely being referenced in the title, and therefore have no meaning. "Of" Is actually used twice, but the second variation along with the first does not interact with the word "it" as "It" has no meaning besides being referenced, turning it into a noun, which does not describe something or modify a meaning. Con also fails to show how "Of" is bound to "it".

Con said: "As some internet legends say, "gg." Thank you, vote con."

Closing statement, no refutal.

http://www.macmillandictionary.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Please wait until the debate is over to choose a winner, as Con has another chance at proving the word "of" Is in "it"

Lexus

Con

I can't really refute my opponent's R2 arguments - they're just wrong, as I highlighted. He is trying to debate a truism, so he says that the truism is correct - he assumes that he will win. But I can refute my opponent's R3 arguments, since there was no structure highlighted.

Basically, my argument is that the written representation of sounds (letters) of the word "it" have the word "of" within them - which means that I should win. Pro... does something. I'm not really sure what he is doing, but he is saying that some how letters are not the written representations of sounds - which is what "written representations of sounds" means entirely. I understand why he might make this connection, citing sign language as a language that doesn't need sound - but sign language isn't written down, it's acted out.
I'm not adding sound to my argument, I'm just saying that if I say that "of" is within the written representation of sound (which are letters) of the word "it", I win. I'm not saying that if it sounds like it is there it is there, that's an entire strawman argument.

Pro continues his strawman of what I said - saying that sound is completely irrelevant to this debate (I agree, which is why I didn't make an argument about sound, I made an argument about letters), but he doesn't actually refute my point that the letters of "it" surround "of" - meaning that he drops this argument entirely. On this basis alone, I should win - he doesn't refute a point that has an impact regarding the resolution, so the impact should be considered in its entirety.

Basically, once again, my argument is that the letters of "it" are around the word "of". That fulfills the resolution that I am negating, since I provided how a word can be seperated by other words - meaning that "it", while seperated, is still a word. That sounds really complicated in writing, but here is an example:

Of over twelve-hundred men, I only saw ten.

The word "l - ed" (l of twelve, ed of hundred), contains "hun" (might be a word, who knows?). This means that the word "hun" is within the word "led" - and this is true. The same thing can be applied to "of" and "it" in the resolution.

Because my arguments remain intact and my opponent has only stated that a truism is true because it is true, please vote on the clear winner here, without bias - Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Themeaman909 1 year ago
Themeaman909
Seriously? This is the most ridiculous debate I have ever seen! I laughed about 6 times while reading it! Seriously, there are so many other good debates and you chose this one? Do you just want free wins?
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
Rami
I have an idea.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
I would also be pro. I think I understand your position in this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.