Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Defining terms in debate

Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 9:03:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If someone opens an argument on DDO and in their introduction doesn't define anything and in the 1st acceptance round Con provides a suitable definition from a reputable source, is Pro allowed to reject this definition in his opening arguments and provide a new one.

Here's the debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 9:06:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Personally,-in your provided debate-I find it rude. Your definition was not even semantical-you provided a very good definition of free will. I find that rude.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 9:06:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'd say no, only in that it is usually accepted that the person opening the debate will define anything they feel needs defining. If the challenger sets the definitions after the debate initiater, I understand that those definitions are to be used.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 9:09:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It seems like he is just using a more philosophically precise definition of free will--the one a debate about free will would be about. I don't think it's really different from yours--it's just more precise. What exactly did you mean by free will that would be different from his definition?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 9:15:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is just my perspective, but I'd say yes he is. The instigator is the sole author of the debate, and cannot be forced to accept the contenders terms, especially on a definitively sensitive one. I can't stand people who take open debates as an opportunity to manipulate definitions in their favor.
"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
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 9:21:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/5/2012 9:15:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
This is just my perspective, but I'd say yes he is. The instigator is the sole author of the debate, and cannot be forced to accept the contenders terms, especially on a definitively sensitive one. I can't stand people who take open debates as an opportunity to manipulate definitions in their favor.

Hmm, I used a definition from an online dictionary. He used an opening snippet from a college article that is addressing a metaphysical, multi-faceted version of the layman's view of 'free-will.'
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 9:25:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/5/2012 9:21:47 PM, Axiom wrote:
At 8/5/2012 9:15:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
This is just my perspective, but I'd say yes he is. The instigator is the sole author of the debate, and cannot be forced to accept the contenders terms, especially on a definitively sensitive one. I can't stand people who take open debates as an opportunity to manipulate definitions in their favor.

Hmm, I used a definition from an online dictionary. He used an opening snippet from a college article that is addressing a metaphysical, multi-faceted version of the layman's view of 'free-will.'

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a perfectly reasonable source for this type of debate--much better than a dictionary. Of course it's addressing the metaphysical idea of 'free will'--what else would a debate about free will be about?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 9:29:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/5/2012 9:21:47 PM, Axiom wrote:
At 8/5/2012 9:15:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
This is just my perspective, but I'd say yes he is. The instigator is the sole author of the debate, and cannot be forced to accept the contenders terms, especially on a definitively sensitive one. I can't stand people who take open debates as an opportunity to manipulate definitions in their favor.

Hmm, I used a definition from an online dictionary. He used an opening snippet from a college article that is addressing a metaphysical, multi-faceted version of the layman's view of 'free-will.'

A debate isn't built on the credentials of its sources, but the logical merit of the arguments put forth. You should be able to demonstrate why his definition is inaccurate, otherwise the source is irrelevant.
"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