Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Semantics

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 7:58:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At my debate tourney this weekend (I'm in Nov Policy, by the by. I started as a sophomore), my second round consisted nearly ENTIRELY of topicality.

My partner and I were AFF, running a moon-basing plan as provided by the league (we must use one of the few plans they provide in novice). The plan read as thus: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase development and exploration of space beyond Earth's mesosphere by establishing a lunar colony.

The NEG's entire case relied on the fact that the word "should," instead of "will" was used in the plan. They were saying the plan doesn't work because the plan only HOPES for change by saying "should." They were so adament about this that they damn near dropped everything else that we said. But, we easily won on that point for two reasons:

1) Even though the WDCA ban on collecting new evidence was lifted for novices Nov 1st, we are still restricted to the plan texts--thus, we should not be punished for poor wording not on our part.

2) The judge's paradigm was POLICY, not STOCK ISSUES. So, while they were debating based on theory, we were debating that AS WELL AS based on the plan.

So, in short: We spent an hour and a half effectively debating should vs. will.

Aren't semantics fun?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:00:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm assuming you are being sarcastic. No they aren't. They can be really annoying. I think it is extremely important especially here at DDO to make semantic-proof resolutions.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:02:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:00:51 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I'm assuming you are being sarcastic. No they aren't. They can be really annoying. I think it is extremely important especially here at DDO to make semantic-proof resolutions.

I was being sarcastic. Anyway--this would've been more appropriate in the Personal or Misc forums, but since this is the DDO forum, I thought a debate related topic would go here.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:03:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That sounded like a genuine misunderstanding. I think the words should and will are extremely important when forming a resolution, as they change the focus of the entire debate. Should implies a moral inclination to do something or implies a net benefit to the parties executing the action. Will implies intent and evidence of an impending action. So, I don't think it was really semantics, just lack of clarity.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:06:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:03:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
That sounded like a genuine misunderstanding. I think the words should and will are extremely important when forming a resolution, as they change the focus of the entire debate. Should implies a moral inclination to do something or implies a net benefit to the parties executing the action. Will implies intent and evidence of an impending action. So, I don't think it was really semantics, just lack of clarity.

Yes, but the NEGs were rather silly, as that was a pre-written blot that they had for that plan--even though the state resolution uses should, and so did ALL of the plans the novices were given.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:07:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:03:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
That sounded like a genuine misunderstanding. I think the words should and will are extremely important when forming a resolution, as they change the focus of the entire debate. Should implies a moral inclination to do something or implies a net benefit to the parties executing the action. Will implies intent and evidence of an impending action. So, I don't think it was really semantics, just lack of clarity.

You obviously never debated competitively...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:08:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:07:21 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:03:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
That sounded like a genuine misunderstanding. I think the words should and will are extremely important when forming a resolution, as they change the focus of the entire debate. Should implies a moral inclination to do something or implies a net benefit to the parties executing the action. Will implies intent and evidence of an impending action. So, I don't think it was really semantics, just lack of clarity.

You obviously never debated competitively...

No, I haven't. I joined mock trial this year though, but the competitions are later on in the year. Is this something they do on purpose?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:09:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:07:21 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:03:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
That sounded like a genuine misunderstanding. I think the words should and will are extremely important when forming a resolution, as they change the focus of the entire debate. Should implies a moral inclination to do something or implies a net benefit to the parties executing the action. Will implies intent and evidence of an impending action. So, I don't think it was really semantics, just lack of clarity.

You obviously never debated competitively...

Lol, so true. They had that off-case argument all written up and everything. But it sucks to be them--their argument is invalid, as in novice we don't have control over the wording of the plans, only the plan we want to run with.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:09:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've never debated competitively but in earlier debates of mine, I was guilty of winning off of semantics alone. It's fun for me when someone so poorly words the resolution, but I see how obviously annoying it can be for the other person.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:10:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:08:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:07:21 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:03:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
That sounded like a genuine misunderstanding. I think the words should and will are extremely important when forming a resolution, as they change the focus of the entire debate. Should implies a moral inclination to do something or implies a net benefit to the parties executing the action. Will implies intent and evidence of an impending action. So, I don't think it was really semantics, just lack of clarity.

You obviously never debated competitively...

No, I haven't. I joined mock trial this year though, but the competitions are later on in the year. Is this something they do on purpose?

Yes. Like I'll say for the third time (due to simulposting) that argument was the lynchpin of their case--they had that sh1t all prewritten.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:10:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:03:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
That sounded like a genuine misunderstanding. I think the words should and will are extremely important when forming a resolution, as they change the focus of the entire debate. Should implies a moral inclination to do something or implies a net benefit to the parties executing the action. Will implies intent and evidence of an impending action. So, I don't think it was really semantics, just lack of clarity.

Interesting...Now, as I am stating this calmly, please explain how the other team could have "misunderstood" what should/will meant?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:11:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:09:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I've never debated competitively but in earlier debates of mine, I was guilty of winning off of semantics alone. It's fun for me when someone so poorly words the resolution, but I see how obviously annoying it can be for the other person.

True, but remember--the poor wording of the plan isn't our fault in the novice division. In Novice Policy, we are provided with several different possible plans, and AFF has to choose one to defend.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:12:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:10:47 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:03:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
That sounded like a genuine misunderstanding. I think the words should and will are extremely important when forming a resolution, as they change the focus of the entire debate. Should implies a moral inclination to do something or implies a net benefit to the parties executing the action. Will implies intent and evidence of an impending action. So, I don't think it was really semantics, just lack of clarity.

Interesting...Now, as I am stating this calmly, please explain how the other team could have "misunderstood" what should/will meant?

lol lets not derail Ninja's thread, please?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:13:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:12:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:10:47 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:03:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
That sounded like a genuine misunderstanding. I think the words should and will are extremely important when forming a resolution, as they change the focus of the entire debate. Should implies a moral inclination to do something or implies a net benefit to the parties executing the action. Will implies intent and evidence of an impending action. So, I don't think it was really semantics, just lack of clarity.

Interesting...Now, as I am stating this calmly, please explain how the other team could have "misunderstood" what should/will meant?

lol lets not derail Ninja's thread, please?

?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:13:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:12:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:10:47 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:03:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
That sounded like a genuine misunderstanding. I think the words should and will are extremely important when forming a resolution, as they change the focus of the entire debate. Should implies a moral inclination to do something or implies a net benefit to the parties executing the action. Will implies intent and evidence of an impending action. So, I don't think it was really semantics, just lack of clarity.

Interesting...Now, as I am stating this calmly, please explain how the other team could have "misunderstood" what should/will meant?

lol lets not derail Ninja's thread, please?

Thanks. lol. But yeah, those two girls were VERY stupid in doing that. That argument would work in varsity, and with a stock issues judge, but not in NOVICE with a POLICY judge.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:23:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Honestly I dont think saying "we didnt write the plan" is a good argument. You still chose to run it from amongst other plans, so unless they all use should instead of will you are at fault.

Also, I think thats just a terrible topicality argument and you should have had the blocks to shoot that down even if you wrote your own plan. What were their standards and voters?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:27:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:23:55 PM, Raisor wrote:
Honestly I dont think saying "we didnt write the plan" is a good argument. You still chose to run it from amongst other plans, so unless they all use should instead of will you are at fault.

Also, I think thats just a terrible topicality argument and you should have had the blocks to shoot that down even if you wrote your own plan. What were their standards and voters?

All of the plans use "should" because the RESOLUTION ITSELF uses "should."

And, could you elaborate on the send question? I'm a novice, so...
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Cobo
Posts: 556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:28:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 7:58:05 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:


The NEG's entire case relied on the fact that the word "should," instead of "will" was used in the plan. They were saying the plan doesn't work because the plan only HOPES for change by saying "should." They were so adament about this that they damn near dropped everything else that we said. But, we easily won on that point for two reasons:


I'm not fluent in the terms of CX, but did you assert the power of fiat?(I hope that's how you spell it)
Church of the BANHAMMER GODS priest
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:35:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:28:54 PM, Cobo wrote:
At 11/6/2011 7:58:05 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:


The NEG's entire case relied on the fact that the word "should," instead of "will" was used in the plan. They were saying the plan doesn't work because the plan only HOPES for change by saying "should." They were so adament about this that they damn near dropped everything else that we said. But, we easily won on that point for two reasons:


I'm not fluent in the terms of CX, but did you assert the power of fiat?(I hope that's how you spell it)

Nope--apparently they pulled out some loophole where we either couldn't do it, or if we did, it'd be abuse.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:40:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:35:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:28:54 PM, Cobo wrote:
At 11/6/2011 7:58:05 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:


The NEG's entire case relied on the fact that the word "should," instead of "will" was used in the plan. They were saying the plan doesn't work because the plan only HOPES for change by saying "should." They were so adament about this that they damn near dropped everything else that we said. But, we easily won on that point for two reasons:


I'm not fluent in the terms of CX, but did you assert the power of fiat?(I hope that's how you spell it)

Nope--apparently they pulled out some loophole where we either couldn't do it, or if we did, it'd be abuse.

Wow, denying Aff fiat in front of a policy-maker judge. That is really just terrible.

Also, usually T arguments have 4 parts: Definitions, Standards, Violation, Voters. So I was just curious if you remembered what their standards were. Their voters were probably like one liners alon the lines of "fairness, education, etc"
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:43:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:40:29 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:35:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:28:54 PM, Cobo wrote:
At 11/6/2011 7:58:05 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:


The NEG's entire case relied on the fact that the word "should," instead of "will" was used in the plan. They were saying the plan doesn't work because the plan only HOPES for change by saying "should." They were so adament about this that they damn near dropped everything else that we said. But, we easily won on that point for two reasons:


I'm not fluent in the terms of CX, but did you assert the power of fiat?(I hope that's how you spell it)

Nope--apparently they pulled out some loophole where we either couldn't do it, or if we did, it'd be abuse.

Wow, denying Aff fiat in front of a policy-maker judge. That is really just terrible.

Also, usually T arguments have 4 parts: Definitions, Standards, Violation, Voters. So I was just curious if you remembered what their standards were. Their voters were probably like one liners alon the lines of "fairness, education, etc"

It actually wasn't a real T--I was just calling it that.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:55:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:43:04 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:40:29 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:35:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:28:54 PM, Cobo wrote:
At 11/6/2011 7:58:05 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:


The NEG's entire case relied on the fact that the word "should," instead of "will" was used in the plan. They were saying the plan doesn't work because the plan only HOPES for change by saying "should." They were so adament about this that they damn near dropped everything else that we said. But, we easily won on that point for two reasons:


I'm not fluent in the terms of CX, but did you assert the power of fiat?(I hope that's how you spell it)

Nope--apparently they pulled out some loophole where we either couldn't do it, or if we did, it'd be abuse.

Wow, denying Aff fiat in front of a policy-maker judge. That is really just terrible.

Also, usually T arguments have 4 parts: Definitions, Standards, Violation, Voters. So I was just curious if you remembered what their standards were. Their voters were probably like one liners alon the lines of "fairness, education, etc"

It actually wasn't a real T--I was just calling it that.

So what was it? Just a "no fiat" argument?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:00:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 8:55:00 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:43:04 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:40:29 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:35:37 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/6/2011 8:28:54 PM, Cobo wrote:
At 11/6/2011 7:58:05 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:


The NEG's entire case relied on the fact that the word "should," instead of "will" was used in the plan. They were saying the plan doesn't work because the plan only HOPES for change by saying "should." They were so adament about this that they damn near dropped everything else that we said. But, we easily won on that point for two reasons:


I'm not fluent in the terms of CX, but did you assert the power of fiat?(I hope that's how you spell it)

Nope--apparently they pulled out some loophole where we either couldn't do it, or if we did, it'd be abuse.

Wow, denying Aff fiat in front of a policy-maker judge. That is really just terrible.

Also, usually T arguments have 4 parts: Definitions, Standards, Violation, Voters. So I was just curious if you remembered what their standards were. Their voters were probably like one liners alon the lines of "fairness, education, etc"

It actually wasn't a real T--I was just calling it that.

So what was it? Just a "no fiat" argument?

Pretty much. They said basically "They're plan does not guarantee any sort of action, and they don't have the power of fiat. Therefore, flow and vote negative."

We won that round, anyway.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:11:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If a resolution is forced upon both parties, semantics shouldn't be used. If the resolution was written by your opponent, by all means semaniticize them.