The Instigator
yuiru
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Time is NOT of the essence

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: 10/27/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,025 times Debate No: 26628
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

yuiru

Pro

Last time someone accepted when I was gone and messed up the debate, so I am redoing the debate...

This is a quick debate!

Time is of the essence, AKA: People should time themselves and meet deadlines (timing and meeting deadlines is essential).

My position is people should not have to be "on time".



P.S. This is not a semantic debate.

Forfeits don't count, but don't forfeit.
RationalMadman

Con

For fun I shall redo this on opposite side of debate.

Time is certainly of the essence.

Due to failure of pro to give definitions (he/she merely reworded the resolution, as if that were to explain everything) I shall take the burden upon myself.

My definitions (not official ones because official ones aren't relevant to debate):

Time = The keeping of arrivals to an event as to the pre-scheduled time of arrival for the efficient beginning of the event.

of the essence = Of importance to maintain a successful decorum within society.

Time is of the essence because no event could occur, for the sake of society, if it weren't for time being of the essence. In fact the host could die before some people arrived at the event (for example an 18 year old waiting 60 years to arrive at an event scheduled for 7am, 60 years prior to his arrival would perhaps lead to the 30 year old hosting the event to die before the 78 year old, previously 16, to even arrive). This would render events impossible to successfully uphold and thus renders all attempts to hold meetings, dinners, educational classes, examinations, sporting races and many more events rather futile if any, and all, members of the event (EVEN the host) not arriving on time and not comprehending it being of the essence.
Debate Round No. 1
yuiru

Pro

I actually did define the resolution!

"Time is of the essence, AKA: People should time themselves and meet deadlines"

This is not even biased!
"Time is of the essence" is a phrase, it is not supposed to be defined each word seperately!


This clearly defines the entire term!

"Time = The keeping of arrivals to an event as to the pre-scheduled time of arrival for the efficient beginning of the event."

This is the verb usage of time (as in to time someone), making it incompatable with the resolution since it is clearly a noun! So even if you think official definitions aren't relevant for debates, it still has to be gramatically correct. But official definitions are completely relevant to debate, they are agreed upon and more reliable, your definitions are biased. That's why it is insipid to define murder as, "Killing consenting people humanely" in a debate about murder is wrong.

Consider these definitions:

a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues

b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

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

These definitions are neutral.

"Time is of the essence because no event could occur, for the sake of society, if it weren't for time being of the essence. In fact the host could die before some people arrived at the event (for example an 18 year old waiting 60 years to arrive at an event scheduled for 7am, 60 years prior to his arrival would perhaps lead to the 30 year old hosting the event to die before the 78 year old, previously 16, to even arrive). This would render events impossible to successfully uphold and thus renders all attempts to hold meetings, dinners, educational classes, examinations, sporting races and many more events rather futile if any, and all, members of the event (EVEN the host) not arriving on time and not comprehending it being of the essence."

I find this arguement, incoherent. People can not choose when they die, nor does an event not happening at all make time of the essence, it is just no one ever decided to go! The only consequence you explain is for things that never occurred! But if nothing ever occured then the only consequence is a lack of something that could have happened.

Say there is a bomb, if there is a deadline for the bomb to go off, does that mean it must meet this deadline? No, you expect it, the point of the bomb is to destroy, if you can expect its destruction, then you have time to stop it. If the bomb was random, then it would be more effective, and probably scare more people.

RationalMadman

Con

My definition of time was that of a noun, not a verb.
Time: The keeping of arrivals to an event as to the pre-scheduled time of arrival for the efficient beginning of the event.

This is not a verb. this is a noun.

The verb 'to time is 'to measure the time which it takes one to do something'. I didn't say that time was to keep to pre-scheduled times I merely stated that it was the keeping of arrivals to an event as to the pre-scheduled time of arrival for the efficient beginning of the event.

I never said people could choose when to die, I merely stated that if we arrived years after the pre-scheduled time of an event, the host could actually have died prior to our arrival thus explaining why time is certainly of the essence for proceedings of events.

I don't see how your bomb comparison works. We are speaking of time as in meeting deadlines, not time as in exploding a bomb, besides if you do something before a deadline (for example explode a bomb prior to it's set time, or arrive at an event before you are supposed to) it could show great enthusiasm and efficiency, early birds do get the best worms after all.

I conclude that time is of the essence.
Debate Round No. 2
yuiru

Pro

If it is a noun why is it so remarkably similar to the verb usage of time:

To time:
to
appoint or choose the moment or occasion for; schedule:
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Your definition describes the appointing of schedules to events.

It doesn't matter if you say "The keeping" or "To keep" your definition is still describing an action, therefore a verb. It does not work in the resolution because it cannot function as a subject of a verb in any sense, because it is not a noun.

"I never said people could choose when to die, I merely stated that if we arrived years after the pre-scheduled time of an event, the host could actually have died prior to our arrival thus explaining why time is certainly of the essence for proceedings of events."

Well... I didn't say you said that! I was essentially saying the host could die anytime! It wouldn't matter what time the event happens!

"I don't see how your bomb comparison works. We are speaking of time as in meeting deadlines, not time as in exploding a bomb, besides if you do something before a deadline (for example explode a bomb prior to it's set time, or arrive at an event before you are supposed to) it could show great enthusiasm and efficiency, early birds do get the best worms after all."

You just explained a way in which it works! Early birds get the best of worms! When you do something before a given time you supersede the deadline! Thus not meeting it! This is exactly why time is not of the essence!

RationalMadman

Con

RationalMadman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
yuiru

Pro

yuiru forfeited this round.
RationalMadman

Con

RationalMadman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
I didn't know that quick
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
Umm... Did I not say in the very first round in bold letters "Quick debate!"
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
Wtf why are your rounds so short? That's a coward's way out.
No votes have been placed for this debate.