It is not ok to use words that elude to a conscious action about an unconscious object.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 8/1/2014 | Category: | Philosophy | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 963 times | Debate No: | 59841 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)
 Con ok - promote the exploration of a topic via a debate between two consciously acting humans. words = sounds, the meaning of which both parties mutually agree upon. conscious = aware of the "I" in ones action. Unconscious = unaware of the "I" in ones action. Action = existing in a particular way, or doing things in a particular way My stance - It helps the human brain learn It allows the human brain to understand abstract concepts in terms the brain is comfortable with, thus allowing said human brain the ability to explore said abstract concept further and make unforeseen dendritic connections between said abstract concept with knowledge that previously existed in the brain. The human brain has evolved enough to make distinctions between when to consider as reality the implications of a word with typically conscious-oriented actions being used on an unconscious object and when to consider it as simply an attempt of the brain saying the word to get it's point across.  Pro " 'Elude' Was Used Out Of Context In the Title Of This Debate. " I.Construct I'll begin my argument now seeing as BoP lies on me. http://dictionary.reference.com... According to the above source, elude means to avoid or escape by means of speed or trickery. My opponent likely confused elude with allude, the latter making more sense in the context of the title. Were I to insert the above definition of elude into the title, it would come out like this. "It is not ok to use words that avoid or escape by speed, cleverness, trickery, etc. to a conscious action about an unconscious object." It is irrational to assume that mere words are capable of a physical action such as escaping. Much more for words to escape TO an action. Allude, however, would make much more sense in this context, seeing as phrases can in fact allude to an action. Furthermore, 'elude' is commonly confused with the word 'allude' since they are pronounced and spelled similarly. This further supports the idea that elude was used in place of allude, making the resolution nonsense. II. Closing Remarks Con's original resolution makes hardly any sense. "elude" was likely a typo and because of that was mistakenly used out of context. On to Con. |
 |
|
Con So, if Pro still wants to debate my original topic then lets do it. Pro can just claim this debate as a victory and we can start a new debate. Or we can spend the remaining round of this debate on the original topic. It is all the same to me. The corn is in your mouth Pro. Pro There seems to have been a misunderstanding. Due to the fact that the debate is already half-over and nobody has presented an actual argument. I say we declare this debate void and a tie. This should resolve this and allow Con to recreate this debate with a more grammatically correct title. If Con agrees, all votes are to be a full tie. |
 |
|
Con My final words. It tickles my curiosity that the simple semantic discrepancy of "elude" being incorrectly used in the place of "allude" stifled any hope of an actual debate on the topic, even though the intended meaning of the topic could be and was deduced by both Pro and Con without any sort of intervention. I fully understand that in competitive debate there are strict rules that must be upheld so that fair judgement can be placed. I guess it was my mistake to not explicitly communicate in the beginning that I don't mind that there are grammatical and/or confusing elements within a topic. My goal is to explore meaning through debate and this can be done under any and all circumstances. I wish Pro good luck in all of his/her future debate endeavors. Pro I do apologize for the semantics. I wouldn't have burdened you with this if it weren't for the wording of that comment. Regardless, the debate is void. All voters (if any) should vote this a tie, I wish my opponent luck when he reinstates this debate. |
 |
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 7 years ago
| xenofied | AlexanderOc | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: TIE
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
| xenofied | AlexanderOc | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: tie
Are you willing to explore this concept via a debate even if the words (elude) are not used according to the rules? If so, you should challenge me. If you are concerned about points, please don't be. The value of exploring an idea cannot be tallied up with points.