The Instigator
Kenostic
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

This sentence makes no sense.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,870 times Debate No: 11200
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (12)

 

Kenostic

Pro

FYI: this is a completely philosophical argument!

It doesn't. :)
Danielle

Con

The sentence "This sentence makes no sense" makes perfect sense to the ones who understand its meaning - presumably those who can read and understand the English language. The word 'sense' has several definitions, including the meaning or gist something [1]. For something to make sense means the observer can understand the meaning behind it. So, the sentence "This sentence makes no sense" describes an observer's observation to not properly understand the meaning behind a sentence. Because those who can read and understand English realize that, then the sentence, in fact, makes sense.

Thank you - I now await my opponent's rebuttal.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Kenostic

Pro

This sentence makes no sense.

You said that sense means: "the meaning or gist something [1]" so lets replace sense with the meaning or gist of something.

This sentence makes no the meaning or gist of something.

Sorry but neither of them work.

"So, the sentence "This sentence makes no sense" describes an observer's observation to not properly understand the meaning behind a sentence."

You are misinterpreting "this." Because there is no other thing it could refer to then it must refer to it's self. (it occurred in the topic of the debate and therefor could not be referring to anything else.) Please read the sentence and try to understand it before you lay down some irrelevant definitions and lay down a translation which doesn't apply.

Lastly, I am quite insulted by your etiquette, i will be polite and ask you to not be so insulting, because whether you meant your argument to be insulting or not, you have implied that i cannot read properly or do not understand english (as can be seen in this quote: "Because those who can read and understand English realize that, then the sentence, in fact, makes sense.")

Thanks for accepting my challenge, and i hope we can have an intelligent and non vulgar argument.)
Danielle

Con

First, I'd like to extend my apologies to Pro who clearly misinterpreted and misrepresented the conduct and meaning behind my words. In no way, shape or form was I insulting to my opponent or his intelligence in any way. Noting that one who can read and understand English will understand the meaning behind something was in NO way a direct insult or reference to Pro. I was speaking very generally with a point that is an integral part of my argument. So let's get back to the debate...

My opponent begins by eliminating the word "sense" from his original statement and replacing it with other words, such as meaning or gist (which he agreed properly defines the word 'sense'). Pro's mistake is that he thinks the definition of something must automatically verbatim fit the definition, instead of recognizing that the definition of something is something (a word OR phrase) that describes the meaning of the word.

Moreover, Pro's assertion is further incorrect when you realize that the definition we agree upon actually is interchangeable with the words "meaning" and "gist." For instance, saying "This sentence makes no sense" is essentially the same as saying "This sentence has no meaning" or "This sentence has no gist." Of course you change some of the words around it to keep it grammatically correct, but the word in question (sense) remains the same part of speech as the words we use to define it.

Now clearly Pro is desperately clinging to a semantics argument; however, any way you look at it favors the Con. Pro acknowledges that "This sentence makes no sense" is referring to itself (the sentence describing the resolution). For that to be true, it would have to mean that the sentence contains no meaning or gist. However, since it contains meaning, then it makes sense (again - to those who understand the English language and can comprehend the sentence when they read it) so there is no reason to vote affirmative. In order to win this debate, Pro must prove that the sentence "This sentence does no make sense" does in fact not make sense. However, because Pro apparently understands the sentence enough to debate it, then clearly it DOES make sense and Pro's own arguments therefore ct against him.
Debate Round No. 2
Kenostic

Pro

First of all, I don't recall agreeing to your definitions, in fact I said "sorry but neither of them work." how you somehow gleaned that I agreed with them is, quite frankly, beyond me.

"gist |jist|
noun [in sing. ]
1 the substance or essence of a speech or text : she noted the gist of each message."
(Apple dictionary)

When looking at your use of the word gist I am forced to question if you truly have a grasp of the words that you are using. I am sorry if this is insulting, however, when looking at a sentence in which the understanding and grasp of words is pivotal in the comprehension of the meaning, I have to question whether you are capable of understanding my arguments and what you are arguing over.

More over, a definition should be able to replace the word:
ex:
The understanding of the sentence is fundamental to his/ her argument.

"fundamental |ˌfəndəˈmentl|
adjective
• affecting or relating to the essential nature of something or the crucial point about an issue : the fundamental problem remains that of the housing shortage."

The understanding of the sentence is affecting or relating to the essential nature of something or the crucial point about an issue ("his/ her argument" would replace "about an issue" because it is the issue)

My definition would be:
"make sense: be intelligible, justifiable, or practicable."
("is" is a conjugation of the verb "to be")
This sentence makes no sense:
This sentence is justifiable
This sentence is intelligible
This sentence is practicable

If the sentence is able to be justified then it is wrong and cannot be justified. Because it is self contradicting it cannot be understood, because the meaning shifts from wherever you look at it. Because it cannot be understood and is unjustifiable it cannot be used and there for is not practicable.

And finally there are a few last points I wish to highlight.
1. "Now clearly Pro is desperately clinging to a semantics argument"
a. I think this is overly hostile, it has the wrong connotation for a person who was acting apologetic for being rude just a little earlier in the argument.
b. This is a semantics argument.

2. "so there is no reason to vote affirmative"
a. I don't think it is appropriate to try to haggle for votes and appeal to the people who are reading, this is between our two brains, not between you and the audience.

3. "Pro's own arguments therefore ct against him."
a. Please use the spell check before you submit, I can't understand what you mean to say here. (ct, FYI, is not a word unless it is an abbreviation meaning carat, cent, etc.)
Danielle

Con

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MeganLoaskia 7 years ago
MeganLoaskia
I liked Cons arguement,
But i think this should go to pro, ,, not like anyone could beat this chick anyway Haa
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
it also seems that kenostic is the vice president vote bomber
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
It seems that the lwerd is our new resident votebomber
Posted by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
What's with all of the V-Bombs?
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
Your*
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
Frish, I already know your his brother. I see Kaylitsa and Khaylitsa have votebombed this debate, too. Enjoy our bans.
Posted by Frish 7 years ago
Frish
It seems to me that the comment thread has turned to a flaming of Kenostic. While he was insulting during the debate, I am looking at the voting categories and seeing one clearly labeled "Who had better conduct?"

Obviously that would be Con, but there are other categories for the vote.

Personally, I agreed with various points for both sides. Kenostic was correct in pointing out to theLwerd that this was a semantics debate, and theLwerd was on to something when she challenged the use of the word "sense". I thought it was an interesting debate, and both participants had valid points.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
CON's arguments didn't seem to have any negative connotation when I read them. I thought that was a moot point. I gave PRO conduct because CON accepted a 12 hour debate but didn't bother to show up.

I didn't vote in arguments. I think I understand CON's arguments but some of what is said confuses me. I'd have to agree with PRO because the sentence seems to be a contradiction so that if one could make sense of the meaning of the sentence, it still would not make sense because the meaning is paradoxical. I didn't vote for PRO on this, because I feel like I'd be putting words in his mouth that he didn't say.
Posted by Aesius 7 years ago
Aesius
Hey, Kenostic, i'm going to vote all 7 r Lwerd, because I don't have time to read your arguments, because, as you put it

"I have a life outside this website"
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
Protip: kenostic, stop being a whiny little vote bombing pr*ck.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
KenosticDanielleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
KenosticDanielleTied
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 kaylitsa 7 years ago
kaylitsa
KenosticDanielleTied
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 Nails 7 years ago
Nails
KenosticDanielleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Aesius 7 years ago
Aesius
KenosticDanielleTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
KenosticDanielleTied
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 khaylitsa 7 years ago
khaylitsa
KenosticDanielleTied
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 Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
KenosticDanielleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
KenosticDanielleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by ciphermind 7 years ago
ciphermind
KenosticDanielleTied
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