Trolling is just a label, a name calling kind of thing.
Debate Rounds (5)
I will accept the Con argument and argue the calling someone a 'Troll' is not an insult.
Pro has inferred the definition of troll as " Trolling is normal with whoever takes a side as someone on the other side of serious issues will have an emotional response even if the instigator dumbs it down with PC language"
He has used the associated verb 'trolling' thereby creating trolling into an action. The person doing the action of the verb can be called the informal noun form of the verb.
Someone whois biking is a biker.
is playing is a player
is sleeping is a sleeper
is watching is a watcher
is killing is a killer
is trolling is a troller.
A troll is someone who has commited that act of trolling. Therefore troll is not an insult, simply a statement of actions of a troller.
Pro has admitted to the act of trolling. And therefore can be considered a troll in a descriptive manner.
Nevertheless my argument still shows "Troll" is not an insult, but a description.
"Trolling is a pejorative term and subjective therefore it is simply a name calling strategy to diminish the validity of a persons comments."
Trolling is an act, as admitted by Pro, therefore it is not pejorative (disapproving or contempt) or subjective, as an action, of trolling is clearly defined by Pro in R1.
The term "troll" can certainly be considered pejorative. You may disagree with the action someone committed, but describing someone by that action is not an insult. Pejorative is a subjective term, as not every may find a certain act disapproving.
For example, Jeffrey Dahmer is a murderer. The term murderer is not an insult, as I am just describing Dahmer by one of the actions he committed; murder. I have complete disapproval of murder, making the term murderer pejorative in my eyes.
In a less extreme scenario, vegetarians may disapprove of someone eating meat. Therefore the term 'meat-eaters' is pejorative to the vegetarian, but this is not an insult, just a description of the action.
If you were to be "trolling" this debate currently (which you are not) I most certainly can call you a troll without it being an insult because you are acting out the verb. I have given several examples of the informal noun describing a verb in R2.
In conclusion, my argument still stands as follows, if someone has "trolled" a debate (which you admit to previously doing and being proud of that) and said person is called a "troll" it is merely a description of action, not an insult.
My references are not invalid. Dahmer committed murder. Therefore he is a murderer. Murderer is not an insult. Muderer describes someone who has committed murder.
If you call someone a troll, who is not trolling, that is not an insult, it is simply incorrect.
If you call someone a troll, who is/has been a part of a trolling argument, is a description of the person and their actions. It is not an insult.
Now if you're argument was on an overuse of the word troll, I would agree with you as it does not apply to some debates on this website.
If I call you a biker, and you have never ridden a bike I am not insulting you, I am solely incorrect.
(to apply this term to a word with a less than favorable connotation to society)...
If I call you a liar, I believe you are lying. I am not insulting you, I am describing your action. If you did not lie, I am still not insulting you, I am just descriving you wrong.
People may not agree on what is exactly trolling in a given situation, but if they believe they have been "trolled" by another person, calling them a trol is based solely on their actions (most likely in a debate scenario).
Pro has only used one source, a Wikipedia entry on the term Trolling (based on the internet slang).
Pro has not used any sources, polls, or surveys to describe how describing how many people use the term troll to "increase their own self esteem". Nor has Pro refuted my point that describing someone by the action they have done is not insulting.
It is unfortunate that you are unable determine the meaning of insult so here is some help.
I do find the terms liar, murder and troll insulting however liars must lie, murderers must kill, now please define trolling and what an act of trolling is. It is perfectly subjective, there is no true or false to trolling, it is in the eye of the beholder, or he who calls the name. I could suggest that someone writing a strong opinion for abortion is trolling, but someone who is for abortion would say the are not. Would the person I called troll feel insulted? Most likely they would because they did not feel that was their intent, their intent was to promote their opinion, whether they used harsh words or not. The fact is that anyone can feel insulted by any label if it is not 100% accurate which would be liar or murderer, they are or are not. Troll is purely subjective and your comparisons leave much to be desired as far as being valid.
Your definition of troll was loosely laid out in your R1 opening. I reiterated your defintion in R2. This went unopposed, therefore the definition stands.
Troll: "Trolling is normal with whoever takes a side as someone on the other side of serious issues will have an emotional response even if the instigator dumbs it down with PC language"\
To simply this: you are stating someone takes the opposing side of a debate and argues against someone for the purpose of creating an emotional response, other than relying on the facts of the debate.
Murder and Lying are actions. Murderer and Liar are titles of a person who ahs committed the acts. Not insults.
You misinterpretting Connotation vs. Denotation.
Connation: what a word implies
Denotation: what a word literally means
If someone is trolling, and you call them a troll, you are stating the literally fit the description of their action.
Pro has stated they have trolled. Therefore Pro is a troll by literal defintiion (denotation).
" Troll is purely subjective " Incorrect. There is nothing subjective about calling someone a troll who has committed "trolling".
Pro has failed to meet BoP by his own defintions of "troll" and "trolling".
Troll is a label, but not for the purpose of name-calling. It is a label to identify the actions of trolling.
Thank you for the debate.
Clear Vote for Con.
I guess when I call Al Gore a green hypocrite, I may be trolling, but more likely that is a fact, however the Al Gore fans would say I am trolling or call me troll most likely. Troll is a defamatory name calling approach to a debate, fact, but it is unable to be proven or defined unless the trolls statements can be disproved with 100% accuracy. Con has continually used the same examples so this should clearly be a win for Pro, and they even tried to end the debate 1 round early.
That was fun, Thanks!
Per the comment section prior to Round 5, I had realized my error in not seeing round 5. This was my error that I apologized for, and will apologize again.
No my final rebuttal and Closing:
In Round 1 you defined trolling. I have stated this in R2, and R4. I will do so one final time.
"Trolling is normal with whoever takes a side as someone on the other side of serious issues will have an emotional response even if the instigator dumbs it down with PC language"
This is your quote.
I then affirmed the defintion in R4 :
"To simply this: you are stating someone takes the opposing side of a debate and argues against someone for the purpose of creating an emotional response, other than relying on the facts of the debate."
This is my quote.
You defined trolling, I affirmed it, you did not refute the definition. Therefore trolling has a clear definition listed above.
You have stated words with clear definitions can be used to label a person not resulting in a insult.
"Facts are 100%, as are actions that result in a label"
Since you have defined, and I have affirmed a clear definition of "trolling", by your logic this can not be an insult.
You in no way have said troll=fool until the final round. You cannot change the definition of a word to fit your argument this late in the debate.
Clear Vote for Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: pro lost this debate in round 2, con already proved trolling is not much of an insult, and this debate turned into dumb semantics arguments
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.