The Instigator
frenchmoosetwo
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

sense - this debate makes none?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2010 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,258 times Debate No: 12849
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

frenchmoosetwo

Pro

-the blind man said No, I like it here the view is better.-
Danielle

Con

The definition of sense in the context of the resolution refers to understanding. Whether or not something "makes sense" can be described as whether or not something adds up, or is able to be understood [1]. The resolution states that this debate does not make sense; in other words it does not add up and is not able to be understood. However, based on a priori knowledge [2] and other descriptions, we can understand the concept of debate and the expectations thereof. For instance, one debater instigates a resolution and their opponent contends or defends a view contrary to the instigator's. As such, this debate absolutely makes sense, adds up, or is able to be understood: Pro acted as the instigator, made a claim, and his opponent (me) is contending his claim. In making this positive assertion that this debate makes no sense, it has become Pro's burden [3] to prove that this debate does not add up or make sense, despite falling within the parameters of what we know as debate [4]. Because it does, I contend that this debate does indeed make sense.

[1] http://www.audioenglish.net...
[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[3] Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
frenchmoosetwo

Pro

-"The definition of sense in the context of the resolution refers to understanding. Whether or not something "makes sense" can be described as whether or not something adds up, or is able to be understood"-

-If there is something stated but what is stated is something that doesnt add up, such as the statement in my round one. It obviously does not make sense because it is impossible for such a situation to appear. You can easily understand something but that doesnt mean it makes sense.-

-According to the definition of sense my opponents link goes to something must "Be reasonable or logical or comprehensible" Now again back to Round 1, "the blind man said No, I like it here the view is better." For such a statement to be called reasonable or logical one must be drinking massive amounts of tree sap [1]-

-"For instance, one debater instigates a resolution and their opponent contends or defends a view contrary to the instigator's. As such, this debate absolutely makes sense, adds up, or is able to be understood"-

-If there is nothing to make sense about within the debate then how can something add up to something sensable when there is nothing to make sense of? I say this debate makes no sense, you say it does, what about the debate makes sense or adds up to be senseable if there is nothing reasonable in it?-

-"falling within the parameters of what we know as debate. Because it does"-

-We are debating about whether or not this debate makes any sense.. yet there is no sense to be found because there was nothing to make sense about in the beggining[2] <,..<

[1] http://1.bp.blogspot.com...
[2] http://dl.dropbox.com...
Danielle

Con

1) Pro: If there is something stated but what is stated is something that doesnt add up, such as the statement in my round one. It obviously does not make sense because it is impossible for such a situation to appear. You can easily understand something but that doesnt mean it makes sense.

RESPONSE: First, the resolution implies that this debate as a whole does not make sense. In the last round I explained how the debate does indeed make sense. To repeat my reasoning, in a debate one debater instigates a resolution and their opponent contends or defends a view contrary to the instigator's. Pro acted as the instigator, made a claim, and his opponent (me) is contending his claim. In other words, the debate itself makes sense. However, Pro implies that if one statement of the debate doesn't add up, that the whole debate does not add up. This could not be further from the truth. There are innumerable debates in which one or more debaters said something non-sensical within the debate and yet the debate as a whole was still able to be understood.

We know that in this debate, Pro intends to prove that this debate itself does not make sense. So far we have seen NO evidence of this. He cites his R1 statement as being "impossible" therefore making this entire debate nonsense. However, let's review the statement ---> "The blind man said, 'No, I like it here the view is better.'" Clearly this blind man was being either (a) sarcastic / funny, or (b) misinformed / confused. A blind man can't see therefore cannot appreciate one view over another. That's true, but there is no evidence that the speaker was not simply wrong in his knowledge definitions or trying to be amusing. Regardless, that non-sensical statement does not negate the entire purpose of this debate. In fact Pro's vocal opposition to the statement proves that he expects his opponent to defend the quote. This upholds my reasoning that within a debate one person makes a claim and expects their opponent to present an argument opposing their claim. Even if his claim is that the sentence from R1 does not make sense, it does not prove that THIS DEBATE does not make sense. Instead it proves that he worded the resolution wrong.

Also, I disagree with his statement "You can easily understand something but that doesnt mean it makes sense." I would like for him to defend this point of view. On the contrary I proclaim the opposite: If you understand something, it means it DOES make sense (to you).

---

2) Pro: According to the definition of sense my opponents link goes to something must "Be reasonable or logical or comprehensible." Now again back to Round 1, "the blind man said No, I like it here the view is better." For such a statement to be called reasonable or logical one must be drinking massive amounts of tree sap.

RESPONSE: Once again, my intent isn't to prove that Pro's R1 statement makes sense (that was never clarified or agreed upon), but instead that this DEBATE makes sense as implied by the resolution. In a debate, one is expected to uphold and negate THE RESOLUTION - not specific statements from rounds - unless otherwise noted - which in this case it wasn't. In the last round I presented a link describing what the purpose of debate was, including a notation that the resolution topic is what's in question. In order to disprove this Pro must explain and prove why the contender has to argue something that is not the resolution but something entirely different.

---

3) Pro: If there is nothing to make sense about within the debate then how can something add up to something sensable when there is nothing to make sense of?

RESPONSE: I've clarified that the point of debate is to argue the resolution. That does not mean one's individual arguments or content rounds have to be coherent. I have debated topics in which my opponent's arguments have made little to no sense - especially in Round 1 [a, b, c] - yet it did not negate the fact that the resolution was to be debated, and that the debate could be effectively debated (and/or won or lost) despite a non-sensical first round by the instigator such as Pro's in this debate.

Pro Continued: I say this debate makes no sense, you say it does, what about the debate makes sense or adds up to be senseable if there is nothing reasonable in it?

RESPONSE: As I explained in the last round, we know how debates work. An instigator begins a debate and chooses the Pro or Con position. This determines where they stand in the debate as well as indicates their burden. In this debate, the user known as frenchmoosetwo instigated (began) a debate with the resolution stating that this debate makes no sense. He chose the Pro position. In other words, we know that his role in this debate is to prove that this debate makes no sense.

By writing a completely irrelevant and non-sensical statement in R1, he has done nothing to fulfill the burden he has in this debate. Still, the debate continues to make sense - i.e. add up - i.e. be understood. It is understood what his and my burden is in this debate, and what we're trying to prove individually. Again he is trying to prove that this debate doesn't make sense, and I am trying to prove that it does. Considering I just reasonably explained my position and cited evidence (including the concept of debate and the concept of burdens with sources in the last round) then so far my position makes the most logical sense.

---

4) Pro: We are debating about whether or not this debate makes any sense.. yet there is no sense to be found because there was nothing to make sense about in the beginning.

RESPONSE: See above

[a] http://www.debate.org...
[b] http://www.debate.org...
[c] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
frenchmoosetwo

Pro

some lol >>>
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by King_da 3 years ago
King_da
--has nothing to do with debate--

lwerd... awful profile pic
Posted by Itsallovernow 3 years ago
Itsallovernow
In an abstract sense, it WOULD make sense. However, it is fallicous and entrapment to not specify. I do not like technicalities.
Posted by Moistcabbage 3 years ago
Moistcabbage
"I see" said the blind man to his deaf brother as he picked up his hammer and saw.
Posted by lovelife 3 years ago
lovelife
"Now I see" said the blind girl
Posted by frenchmoosetwo 3 years ago
frenchmoosetwo
"so i've heard" said the deaf man
Posted by lovelife 3 years ago
lovelife
"Ah I see" said the blind man to his deaf daughter.
Posted by frenchmoosetwo 3 years ago
frenchmoosetwo
sony vegas why?
Posted by I-am-a-panda 3 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Moose, what do you use to make videos?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by mrsmooth27 3 years ago
mrsmooth27
frenchmoosetwoDanielleTied
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 Lamza61 3 years ago
Lamza61
frenchmoosetwoDanielleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Itsallovernow 3 years ago
Itsallovernow
frenchmoosetwoDanielleTied
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 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 3 years ago
Danielle
frenchmoosetwoDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06