Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Are we allowed to...?

TheBrightestNeon
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 12:37:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Are we allowed to squirrel? Like, redefine the terms of debate (so long as they fit with the rest of the subject).

For example, if the motion read "This House Would dissolve the police", it would be a squirrel to refer to the band The Police instead of the police. Another squirrel in this case, that helps the opening side by making the debate generally easier for them, is to add unreasonable exceptions to the motion. For example, defending "dissolving the police" except in cases where it has to "uphold the law" is rather easy.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 12:54:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 12:37:50 AM, TheBrightestNeon wrote:
Are we allowed to squirrel? Like, redefine the terms of debate (so long as they fit with the rest of the subject).

For example, if the motion read "This House Would dissolve the police", it would be a squirrel to refer to the band The Police instead of the police. Another squirrel in this case, that helps the opening side by making the debate generally easier for them, is to add unreasonable exceptions to the motion. For example, defending "dissolving the police" except in cases where it has to "uphold the law" is rather easy.

If you are talking about using tricky semantics when the opposition hasn't properly defined his or her terms, then it is fine to 'squirrel'. You might lose a conduct point, sure, but you'd ultimately win in the end.
I miss the old members.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 12:58:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 12:37:50 AM, TheBrightestNeon wrote:
Are we allowed to squirrel?

stopped reading here
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 11:11:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I like seeing things like that because they're unexpected and make the debate very interesting. But as a strategy, I dont think its very viable. Voters will say that its clear what the topic is really about.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 11:40:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
allowed
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 11:53:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 11:11:43 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
I like seeing things like that because they're unexpected and make the debate very interesting. But as a strategy, I dont think its very viable. Voters will say that its clear what the topic is really about.

This. I hate semantics.
I like seeing all the ways words can be twisted, but in a -real- -serious- debate, all its going to do is lose conduct, and argument points, at least from me.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 11:55:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 11:53:21 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 2/22/2011 11:11:43 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
I like seeing things like that because they're unexpected and make the debate very interesting. But as a strategy, I dont think its very viable. Voters will say that its clear what the topic is really about.

This. I hate semantics.
I like seeing all the ways words can be twisted, but in a -real- -serious- debate, all its going to do is lose conduct, and argument points, at least from me.

For me it really depends on the debate. I can't really deduct points if somebody's use of semantics makes me burst out laughing.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 1:24:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 11:55:59 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/22/2011 11:53:21 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 2/22/2011 11:11:43 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
I like seeing things like that because they're unexpected and make the debate very interesting. But as a strategy, I dont think its very viable. Voters will say that its clear what the topic is really about.

This. I hate semantics.
I like seeing all the ways words can be twisted, but in a -real- -serious- debate, all its going to do is lose conduct, and argument points, at least from me.

For me it really depends on the debate. I can't really deduct points if somebody's use of semantics makes me burst out laughing.

Well is it Brian or L?
The more serious the debater the more irritating it becomes, but with brian and such, it can really add to it.

Have brian and L ever debated each other?
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 10:03:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 12:37:50 AM, TheBrightestNeon wrote:
Are we allowed to squirrel? Like, redefine the terms of debate (so long as they fit with the rest of the subject).

For example, if the motion read "This House Would dissolve the police", it would be a squirrel to refer to the band The Police instead of the police. Another squirrel in this case, that helps the opening side by making the debate generally easier for them, is to add unreasonable exceptions to the motion. For example, defending "dissolving the police" except in cases where it has to "uphold the law" is rather easy.

Basically, yes.

I wouldn't recommend doing it in that particular debate, since the voters are more likely going to side with the instigator in a definition argument, especially if they already posted an opening arguement which clearly shows that they are talk about a police force, run by the government (either federal, state, or city level).

Now if it was something, like they did not define the word "exist" in a debate of "God does not exist." One could easily argue that God does exist in books (that is at least provable) and that the realm of reality is only one layer of existance and not the only one (even though that is likely what the debate was about).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 4:30:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think it boils down to whether the meaning of the resolution s implied by the opening argument. If someone posts the resolution and says nothing more than, say, "I'll let my opponent go first," then I think the opponent can fairly game the semantics. However, if the opening argument implies a definition, then that's good enough even if the definition is not stated explicitly. Even when initiating as Con, there is an obligation to pose an unambiguous resolution.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2011 11:10:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/3/2011 11:08:20 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
I think a debate where both sides purposely use insane semantics would be quite fun.

Let's do it. :P

Nah, Only if you want to.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2011 11:01:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
In patents, the law allows the inventor to define terms for use in the claims. Theoretically, one could say, "For this disclosure "up" shall mean "down."

A book written by a linguist says there is a small island in Japan where somehow the words for "yes" and "no" have been interchanged, causing great confusion to unaware travelers.

A debate could be constructed based on the premise of demanding consistent use of bizarre definitions. On second thought, that wouldn't be fun. Well, maybe for budding lawyers ...

Back on topic, the goal for punishing someone for ambiguous meaning is to make a point about the practice of debate. Many challenges are posed without an opening argument or definitions, and that should be discouraged. So occasionally, I think, its okay to jump on bad semantics to make a point. In chess, you shouldn't ignore the possibility of "fool's mate" on the grounds it doesn't make for a good game.