Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Semantics?

emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2012 12:01:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.debate.org...
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2012 12:13:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/20/2012 12:09:51 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
At 12/20/2012 12:01:25 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Concur:
Be of the same opinion; agree.

I meant accept terms.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
imabench
Posts: 21,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2012 12:34:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/20/2012 12:01:25 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Yes that is semantics.

Finish him.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2012 12:46:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nope. Sorry. Semantics is a bullsh1t defense. I guess I'm like, the only person on this site who finds semantical loopholes acceptable. I honestly think there's no excuse if you're losing the round due to "semantics." RL debate, definitions, semntical arguments, and frameworks resulting from definitions are many times at the heart of a round. If you think your opponent is being semantical, grow up and argue semantics back. Offer counter-definitions, offer counter-interpretations, whatever. But saying "lol ur bein a lawyerzor ur arg is invalid" is not sufficient.

This becomes ESPECIALLY true if one accepted the resolution and definitions. Then it's your fault. You could've clarified, raised concerns, or offered definitions when you had the chance. By agreeing, you've agreed to the resolution. The semantics argument, when there's a round for acceptance, is not a voter AT ALL. I suppose you could offer a counter-interpretation of the resolution if you really had to, but still.

TL;DR: Calling semantics on someone is crap. It's also completely invalid if you've accepted rules, definitions, BOP, the resolution, etc. And if you think their interpretation is faulty, say why and offer your own. Don't just yell semantics.

/rant
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
cheesedingo1
Posts: 695
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2012 3:31:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/20/2012 12:41:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
What's wrong with semantics? You Anti-Semantic bastards.

amen. Love me some semantics.
My name is Cheesedingo1. I am a dingo. Made of cheese. My favorite number is one. BOOM.