Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Semantics

nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 12:09:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I hereby request that a voting category be created that docks a user 7 points for playing semantics and totally ignoring the point of the debate. All the instigator has to say in the first round is "no semantics", and if the contender plays semantics, voters can dock him points. I understand that this will put Koopin out of business, but all in favor say "aye."
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 12:26:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
As long as I'm still allowed to use semantics against those who forget to clarify against semantics and forget to establish the proper context of the debate, then sure.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 12:54:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nay. If you create an exploitable resolution, and don't define it, too bad. Create another debate, don't wander onto the forums butthurt.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 7:58:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 12:26:14 PM, mongeese wrote:
As long as I'm still allowed to use semantics against those who forget to clarify against semantics and forget to establish the proper context of the debate, then sure.
This. They MUST clarify that they do not want semantics in their debate, or else it will be valid. However, if this is clarified, and the contender still does it anyway, then the dock option should be used.
I miss the old members.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 8:13:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't know of anyone who uses semantics when the instigator says it is not aloud.

But if they do, they can have conduct points taken.

And sorry, but if "no semantics" is unstated, then it's perfectly acceptable.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 2:11:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 12:54:01 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Nay. If you create an exploitable resolution, and don't define it, too bad. Create another debate, don't wander onto the forums butthurt.

That can be done without semantics. Clarification on a term i fine, unless it is done absurdly so.

I said it before, those who rely on semantics tend to have a weak argument, or an anal retentive mind.

Aye
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 2:14:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 2:11:56 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/16/2010 12:54:01 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Nay. If you create an exploitable resolution, and don't define it, too bad. Create another debate, don't wander onto the forums butthurt.

That can be done without semantics. Clarification on a term i fine, unless it is done absurdly so.

I said it before, those who rely on semantics tend to have a weak argument, or an anal retentive mind.

Aye

Take a look at koopin's debates. They're almost entirely all semantics. haha.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 4:50:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The only times I respect the semantic arguments is when they are genuinely really, really funny (which doesn't happen often) or when they are used to defeat a stupid auto-win debate, in this context a pointless debate can become amusing. This is what Kleptin used to do well.

Some other people don't seem to get it and make semantic arguments that ruin potentially interesting debates, or actually instigate a debate with a semantic argument that isn't even funny.

This is dumb.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 5:59:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It should be your job to decimate a semantic argument in the first place. If you cannot convince the voters as to why the argument is semantics and therefore invalid, you deserve to lose.
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 12:32:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 5:59:37 AM, tkubok wrote:
It should be your job to decimate a semantic argument in the first place. If you cannot convince the voters as to why the argument is semantics and therefore invalid, you deserve to lose.

So you spend most if not all of the space explaining to the voters why the opponent's argument was semantics and therefore invalid, the voters agree with your explanation of his argument, and you win. Yay? Sorry, but when I start a debate, I want to actually, you know, debate. Explaining why my opponent's argument was purely semantics is a waste of my time. Hence my creation of this thread.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)