Instigator / Pro
0
1581
rating
38
debates
64.47%
won
Topic
#2021
There should be a limit to the number of debates a person can be engaged in at a time.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description
Pretty self explanatory.
Round 1
DebateArt encourages quality debates, not just the insult-fests and trolls you see on DDO. Making a quality argument, with sources and developed arguments, is necessarily a time investment. I have personally spent several hours researching and writing a single round, but I (and everyone else) have a limited number of free hours in a day. Assuming a minimum of 7 hours of sleep, 5-7 hours of work/school, and 2 hours of eating/bathing/other basic maintenance, it's reasonable to assume that the maximum number of free time for someone who works full time or goes to school is 8-10 hours.
Now, not all of that is based on any studies, but the average school day for teenagers like User_2006 or myself in the U.S. is 6.22 to 7.17 hours.[1] The average work week in the U.S. is 34.4 hours, which on average is slightly less than 5 hours a day.[2]
Considering the amount of activity on this website, it is reasonable to assume few to none of the people here spend all of their leisure hours here. User_2006 has 4 debates in debating and 5 in open challenge. I believe that if he was forced to be working on all of those debates at once it would seriously detract from the quality of debate that he might otherwise be able to do.
There was a point when RationalMadman had about 13 (this number could be wrong, and I apologize) debates going, including one with me and he decided to forfeit all of them since he was too busy. As nice as it is to debate, there are other things that take priority.
I Introduction: Limitations
I.a One of my favorite authors, Richard Bach, said in a novel, “Argue for your limitations; they’re yours.”[1]Some of you may have been the recipient of this barb when I’ve felt you are pushing the limitation argument too far. I don’t apologize; get a backbone. I also frequently reference the Prophet, Yoda, in his first meeting of Luke Skywalker, who has just landed his spacecraft in a swamp. Yoda tells him to move it to solid ground using the Force, the power Luke has come to this planet to learn from Yoda. After trying, and failing, he tells Yoda, “I can’t.”
Yoda replies, “That is why you fail.”
“I’ll try again,” Luke says [paraphrasing].
“Try not! Do, or do not. There is no try,”Yoda says emphatically.[2]
I should rest my case on these examples alone, but that would be deceptive. None of this is my thinking other than that I agree with both Bach and Yoda, completely.
II Argument: "What a piece of work is man!"[3]
II.a Though not evident in Darwin’s On the Origin of Species,the renowned biologist of natural selection fame, did not address the mental faculty of the genus, Homo sapiens,though he later did in The Descent of Man,and reluctantly concluded that man may have presented a fully functional, innovative, complicated brain on first blush, whether or not he “…[had] been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one…”[4] The argument rages on the matter, or count, rather, of forms, but that is beside the point. And whether or not man first presented a fully functioning brain, he does now, and has for millennia.
II.b I often joke about the TV series on History.com, Ancient Aliens,[5] because it invariably offers “evidence” that without those superlative aliens, man would have never invented the wheel, or any other geometry [a pyramid?]. We were stupid. I guess we still are, considering the series is in its 15thseason, but I don’t buy it. I don’t think I’ve ever watched a complete episode. I’ve tried, but I tire of degrading ourselves, and our ancients. But, that’s another debate, and I drift from this one.
II.c “What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! How infinite in faculties! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel! In apprehension, how like a god! The beauty of the world, the paragon of animals!”[6]
I would argue that Hamlet sides with Bach and Yoda: limitations are a loser’s argument. So, the question of this debate begs: “There should be a limit to the number of debates a person can be engaged in at a time.”Questions:
1. Who decides?
2. Is that person the superlative debate participant, both in quality of debate and the number of simultaneous debates engaged?
3. If not, what are the criteria of a simultaneous debate number?
4. Are all debaters capable of the set limit, or are any?
5. What if many debaters are capable of a higher limit than that set?
6. What is the purpose of the limitation of number of simultaneous debates?
III Is man a train switching yard, or a solitary road?
III.a If Darwin is known for anything, it is inter-species differentiation. Homo sapiens is a superb example. The brightest of us exceed an IQ of >200. The dumbest? Something less than that. But, is IQ a good measure for the proposal of the debate?
III.a.1 Another diversity Homo sapiensexhibits is walking and chewing gum simultaneously, and some can perform three or four, or more tasks simultaneously. As the number increases, perhaps the quality of the tasks degrades, but is that degradation a factor of relative intelligence, or some other factor? And are we all consistent in that degradation?
III.a.2 Still another diversity is the number of arguments, and the number of character-count per round of arguments.
III.a.3 Moreover, another diversity is the number of days required to post argument in each round.
III.a.4 Finally [though there may be more], another diversity is the level of knowledge a participant has in simultaneous debate subjects.
III.a.5 Can all these variables, combined, be fairly established to set a ubiquitous limit on the number of simultaneous debates allowed to be engaged? In what universe? I’m suspicious that man is a train switching yard, and not a solitary road.
III.b “A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, else what’s a heaven for?”[7]
IV: Rebuttal
IV.a Pro argues in round 1 that available time to a debate participant is a limitation. I do not contest the argument per se, but, not all debate participants have the same limitations of time. Therefore, why limit those who do not have such limitations [I am one of them. If my time can be allotted to accept more debates than my opponent, so be it]. Let those who have time-based limits not accept as many debates as others can. Bingo, problem solved. To think otherwise imposes an unnecessary limitation for the convenience of less leisure time which I consider to be the definition of research and writing in an exercise which, after all, is relaxing to a great degree. Simply put, I am the master of my schedule. Advantage? Yes, but, that’s life. I have earned this leisure “by the sweat of my brow.” Let others earn theirs in their time. Who said life was fair to all at any moment in time?
[1]Bach, Richard, Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah,Dell Publishing, 1977
[2]Kirshner, Irwin, Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back,20thCentury Fox, 1980
[3]Shakespeare, William, Hamlet,II, ii
[4]Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species,6thedition, Heritage Press, 1963
Round 2
I'm going to summarize the arguments made by Con in order to divorce any emotional attachments that he made.
I. Richard Bach said "argue for your limitations; they're yours." Yoda said "Do or do not, there is no try." I'm assuming that due to this, we should conclude that there are no such things as limitations and we can do anything, though Con doesn't explain this at any point, so you kinda have to do a lot of legwork on this yourself.
II.a Darwin wasn't sure if humans evolved intelligence or if they were immediately gifted it by God. However, the previous statement is irrelevant since humans are intelligent now.
II.b makes fun of the Ancient Aliens show, then says "We were stupid. I guess we still are," which makes a good joke, but is never refuted, so the end statement is that humans are stupid.
II.c Shakespeare calls humans infinite in faculty.
Rebuttal:
Anyone paying attention will note that every single example is either a quote from a work of fiction except Darwin and Bach. Yoda is portrayed as a wise old dude, but the Jedi also said we must not have any emotional attachments, which I'm guessing most people here will disagree with, since many of you seem to at least have emotional attachments to certain stances, which I infer from the fact that you're spending your time debating them. Also, really, Yoda's only as wise as George Lucas, who no one's espousing as all that wise as far as I'm aware.
Shakespeare is an author. He uses literary devices, such as HYPERBOLE: extravagant exaggeration (such as "mile-high ice-cream cones", to make poetic points. [1] This particular quote is from a monologue, so it is particularly likely to be such.
The whole Darwin quote was irrelevant to the point in II.b, which was that humans have fully functioning brains.
The whole Aliens thing is more of a complaint that conspiracy theorists believe that humans aren't capable of technological developments without alien help. I can kinda see where he's going and I'll get back to it in a moment.
The Richard Bach quote is a nice way to open, and it frames the point that Con is trying to make. However, I would like to note that Con is putting on quotes as a source of credibility. But a quote from a famous person saying slavery is good isn't a compelling case for slavery, so keep that in mind.
~~~
Questions:
1. Who decides?
A. We have these lovely things called MEEPs where members of the community vote for changes to policies.
2. Is that person the superlative debate participant, both in quality of debate and the number of simultaneous debates engaged?
A. What do you mean by superlative? Also, no, since this question is answered by the previous one.
3. If not, what are the criteria of a simultaneous debate number?
A. Everyone votes. Personally, I'm fairly overwhelmed by more than three at a time, but I think there are plenty of others capable of more. Basically, it could be based off the average amount of free time and you could get mod permission for more if you had the time.
4. Are all debaters capable of the set limit, or are any?
A. Everyone is capable of limitation. You are living under limits all the time. For instance, I presume you follow speed limits. It's a maximum, not a minimum.
5. What if many debaters are capable of a higher limit than that set?
A. Mod permissions
6. What is the purpose of the limitation of number of simultaneous debates?
A. Like I said, to promote quality, not quantity, of debates.
~~~
Just a rebuttal this time. If I feel anything needs, a recap, I will.
III. There is no explanation of what the switching yard thing is supposed to mean, so I'm assuming it references multitasking like III.a.
III.a Con sets up his differentiation kritik, which I'll get into in a minute
III.a 1 Yes, humans can chew and walk at the same time, with little to no degradation to either task, but neither are relatable to a task like having intelligent conversation. It is basically impossible to hold two conversations in real time to the same quality as a single conversation.
III.a 2-5 variations on the differentiation kritik. Yes, there is a fairly large variance in people, but there are still general limits to human ability. The fastest humans is nowhere as fast as a computer, a cheetah, or a sailfish (at math, running, and swimming, respectively). Shot of transhumanist augmentation, there are hard physical limits on how fast a human can go regardless of anything else, do to the law of physics.
III.b “A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, else what’s a heaven for?” This quote DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the Yoda quote before. To reach without grasping is by definition trying. Con isn't even consistent in his own argument.
IV.a I acknowledge that different people have different time limitations, but the majority of people cannot maintain a large number of debates. The idea that everyone can regulate themselves is idealistic. Many people lack the self control to properly maintain a healthy balance between entertainment and other aspects of their life. Con is retired, which I can say with confidence puts him in a minority. The majority of users range from teens to thirties. if there are even 4 retired users on DArt out of the 302 total according to the leaderboard, I would be surprised.
~~~
Recap and addition to arguments:
1. Quality of debates will go down in direct relation to the number of debates a person is in at a time. For elaboration, see R1.
2. Trolls and spam are reduced. There are other ways to address this, so it's more of a side benefit than the main goal.
~~~
Sources
I Rebuttal: Pro round 2: My hours are spent
I.a My opponent’s round 1 declared, “I have personally spent several hours researching and writing a single round…” but then declared in his round 2: “Con doesn't explain this at any point, so you kinda[sic] have to do a lot of legwork on this yourself.” Am I the only one finding the irony? I don’t explain? Well, after a play written by T.S. Eliot was produced, an obtuse journalist [types who presumably do research, and a lot of legwork] asked Eliot, “What does it mean?”
Eliot replied, “It means what it says.” I will reply to Pro with exactly the same commentary.
I.b Apparently, my opponent finds fiction to be void of truth and wisdom. That’s a shame. I suggest the devil tells more truth than most men do. It’s how he sets the hook to reel souls in, and that’s the truth. Likewise, Bach’s “Argue for your limitations…” [which is also from a fiction novel, but my opponent claims otherwise] and Yoda’s “That is why you fail,”and “There is no try,”and even Shakespeare’s “What a piece of work is man!”are all truisms that most would find difficult to prove as falsehoods. Polonius, the king, in Hamlet, tells his son, departing for college, “To thine own self be true, then it follows as the night the day that thou canst be false to any man.”[1] Will anyone declare that this is not a truism? Really? So my opponent jests at my comment that Ancient Aliens thinks men are stupid? You be the judge, readers. I’m just quoting fiction, here. If it doesn’t float, don’t get on the boat.
I.c That’s a metaphor, by the way, as are virtually all those quotes. Metaphors do not work unless the reader does the legwork to realize the truth behind the words. However, my opponent is opposed to literary devices. They must tell a false story according to my opponent, such as declaring, “slavery is good,” according to Pro. I don’t recall quoting any author saying that, fiction, or non. Let me remind readers that putting words in one’s opponent’s mouth is also a literary device, but the words still come from the word-putter. Let’s be certain we track who says what, yes?
II Rebuttal: Q&A
II.a Who decides? MEEPs, says Pro. Is that a hyperbole?
II.b Superlative debate participants? What’s superlative? says Pro. Research and legwork are usually involved. A Dictionary is a friend, but not if it’s kept closed.
II.c What criteria for simultaneous debates? Everyone votes, says Pro. Funny thing, I’ve never been asked to vote on a policy. I must not be part of “everyone.” I’ve even challenged a policy, and it did not go to a membership vote.
II.d All debaters capable at set limits? My opponent: “Everyone is capable of limitation.” Yep, that tracks with Pro’s misunderstanding of my opening round 1 argument, let alone my closing reach. We’ll get to that.
II.e Higher limits? Pro says Mods should give permissions. If Mods did that, then my sixth question looms ever larger:
II.f What purpose, then, to limitations? Pro: “To promote quality.” Sorry, my friend. I spent a career in manufacturing process and quality management. Arbitrary limits [and they would be that] do not offer quality, dear friends, they merely offer limits when a process is capable of greater potential [volume] and quality. You don’t inspect in quality; it’s either there to begin with because the process is robust, or it is not. If quality is the objective, it must be the product of every debater, or not, in every debate engaged, or not. Quality is not a guarantee, even with a limited production. Advise brushing up on six sigma. Okay, end of motivational speech.
III Rebuttal: Switching yards and solitary roads.
III.a Revise rebuttal, above, I.c, a.k.a., “literary device,” and the mention of Thomas Sterns Eliot, above, I.a. The clue that a metaphor follows is “Man is…” Refer to the string of superlatives [dictionary, yet?] in Hamlet’s soliloquy on man in my round 1, II, reference [3]. More r&l needed, as explained in I.a, above. Pro will work on Rs & Ls, and the limits may be greater than Pro imagined should he insist on them.
IV Rebuttal: “Quality will go down”
IV.a If Pro insists on this outcome, then, I repeat my solution from round 1, IV.a: “Let those who have time-based limits not accept as many debates as others can. Bingo, problem solved.”If the meaning of that is vague, try this: Impose you own limits, Pro. You’re arguing for them; they’re yours. But, it’s all a fiction, isn’t it?
V Rebuttal: “A man’s reach…”
V.a “...without grasping is by definition trying,”declared Pro. But Pro must not have ever read Browning[2] or the true sense of the verse would have had another outcome not of “trying,” merely, but of achieving. Big difference, that. Pro, not attuned to literary devices, misses that there is no “without” occurring in that poem; the whole matter is a desire not just to reach, and fail, but to reach and obtain; to grasp. And that is what a heaven’s for, when, as Yoda said, “There is no try.” There is but the grasp of the thing desired. Oh, well, it’s just a metaphor, anyway. Who cares?
VI Argument: Hamlet’s limits
VI.a As this is totally a metaphoric argument, a literary device, if you will, I’ll expect it will be skipped by Pro, but the rest may take note:
V.a.1 Hamlet’s tragedy was not that everybody, including him, dies in the end, and it was not that Ophelia was mad-as-a-hatter in love with him, nor that his mother, the Queen, was having an affair with her husband’s brother, who killed Hamlet’s father to start the “black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken,” or even that Hamlet was haunted by his father’s ghost. It was “Once upon a midnight dreary, while [he] pondered, weak and weary,” the limitations set upon him by his father’s ghost to avenge untimely death. Limitations brought the house down. “Only this and nothing more.”“Limitations were the ‘Man delights not me’ metaphor in Hamlet’s nevermore,”quoth the Raven.[3]
Round 3
This is getting ridiculous. You can't just quote fiction and expect that to be some sort of win condition. My turn.
Ok, if it means what it says, then argument I for Con was just two quotes without any explanation whatsoever. Er go, they should not count as evidence, just like his Darwin quote. I was almost doing you a favor there, you know, explaining what I got out of it since you didn't, but I guess I'm the bad guy now.
Fiction quotes are completely irrelevant. Mark Twain said, "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that any well known quotes such as the Shakespeare one and the Yoda one are lies. And look, I used a famous person's quote, so I must be right.*
my opponent finds fiction to be void of truth and wisdom.
I NEVER SAID THAT! If you are going to put words in my mouth, I will reciprocate. I said
Yoda's only as wise as George Lucas
and
I would like to note that Con is putting on quotes as a source of credibility. But a quote from a famous person saying slavery is good isn't a compelling case for slavery, so keep that in mind.
The point is that a quote, whether fiction or otherwise, is only credible if it can be backed up.
~~~
II.a Who decides? MEEPs, says Pro. Is that a hyperbole?
No, it's fact.
A Dictionary is a friend, but not if it’s kept closed.
Shut up, you condescending @sshole. I did look up superlative, to see if it had a definition I was unaware of, but it says
Definition of superlative (adj)1: of, relating to, or constituting the degree of grammatical comparison that denotes an extreme or unsurpassed level or extent
From this, the best assumption I can make is that you were asking if the best (aka superlative) debaters are supposed to make up the rules. I would like to note that I asked you what you meant by superlative and instead of explaining you insulted my ability to use Google. And the answer is still no like I said in R2.
Bach’s “Argue for your limitations…” [which is also from a fiction novel, but my opponent claims otherwise]
Google places the book in the genres of self-help, allegory, and philosophical fiction. The novel in question, Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, is located in DDC 158, Self-improvement, at my local library. This is a non-fiction section. Allegory is also usually considered a non-fiction section. If 2/3 genres are non-fiction, EXCUUUSE ME for calling it that.
Likewise, Bach’s “Argue for your limitations…” [which is also from a fiction novel, but my opponent claims otherwise] and Yoda’s “That is why you fail,”and “There is no try,”and even Shakespeare’s “What a piece of work is man!”are all truisms that most would find difficult to prove as falsehoods.
No. You do not get to call these statements truisms. That is not your call. People do not fail because they try instead of doing, like Yoda said. If I jump off a cliff, saying, "Do or do not, there is not try," I will still fail, despite my efforts. Those efforts are called trying. The ancient proverb, "Fall down seven times, get up eight" is the epitome of the importance of trying. If you fail, it is not because you "did not," but because not everything works the first time. By saying "there is no try," You are undermining thousands of years of human innovation by saying everything ever done was accomplished by people refusing to be bound by limits. The Wright brothers worked within limits of physics, otherwise they would have tried flapping their wings like people have been doing for thousands of years. They constructed a wind tunnel and through TRIAL (er go, TRYING) and error, created a flying machine. Sorry if I trust the lesson of human history more than what the green little bastard said.
So my opponent jests at my comment that Ancient Aliens thinks men are stupid?
No, you said "We were stupid. I guess we still are, considering the series is in its 15thseason [sic]." You used the existence of the show to argue that humans are stupid. if this was meant to be joking, that was not the place to do so without clarification.
They must tell a false story according to my opponent, such as declaring, “slavery is good,” according to Pro. I don’t recall quoting any author saying that, fiction, or non.
IT WAS AN EXAMPLE. My point was that quotes aren't automatically right, they just make you look good.
Let me remind readers that putting words in one’s opponent’s mouth is also a literary device, but the words still come from the word-putter. Let’s be certain we track who says what, yes?
I'm not the one putting words in people's mouths. Keep that in mind.
~~~
III. What are the R and Ls? Please clarify. If you don't they will go unaddressed.
IV:
Impose you own limits, Pro.
You've been arguing against limits this entire time, but I guess everyone should have limits after all.
V: If the reaching is "without grasping," as Browning says, then there is no achievement. It literally refers to failing to grasp your goals, (aka failure). This is an excellent quote, but it doesn't support your argument, but rather actively undermines it.
VI:
Hamlet’s tragedy was not that everybody, including him, dies in the end, and it was not that Ophelia was mad-as-a-hatter in love with him, nor that his mother, the Queen, was having an affair with her husband’s brother, who killed Hamlet’s father to start the “black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken,” or even that Hamlet was haunted by his father’s ghost. It was “Once upon a midnight dreary, while [he] pondered, weak and weary,” the limitations set upon him by his father’s ghost to avenge untimely death. Limitations brought the house down. “Only this and nothing more.”“Limitations were the ‘Man delights not me’ metaphor in Hamlet’s nevermore,”quoth the Raven.[3]
This entire thing is made up. Every Shakespearean Tragedy results from the protagonist's (in this case the eponymous Hamlet) hubris. This is always by definition a fatal flaw on the protagonist's part, not some unavoidable thing forced upon him, as Con suggests. In Hamlet's case, his hubris is generally agreed by scholar's to be either pride or indecision. If Hamlet had killed Claudius sooner, or not fought Laertes literally over Ophelia's body, he probably would not have died.
~~~
Sources:
Yoda, Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, George Lucas
Hamlet, William Shakespeare
Browning, Robert, Andrea del Sarto
Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
Japanese Proverb, source unknown.
~~~
*Irony warning
I Rebuttal: Pro round 3: “Fiction quotes are completely irrelevant”
I.a My opponent quotes Twain, “A lie can travel around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”A quote that belies Pro’s entire argument against literary devices, because, clearly, lies do not travel on their own; they are passed mouth to ear. Further, truth wears no shoes, other than by literary device; which, quoting my opponent from round 2, “He [Con] uses literary devices, such as hyperbole: extravagant exaggeration [such as ‘mile-high ice cream cones,’ to make poetic points.”That commentary is not supportive; therefore, we must conclude Pro is wont to avoid using literary devices to avoid exaggeration. But, he just did.
1.b So, my opponent declares, in round 3, “Fiction quotes are completely irrelevant.” I presume he means that quoting fiction is automatically lying, as he alleged by his Mark Twain quote. As Mark Twain, was, himself, a novelist [a writer of fiction], I suppose Pro is using him in some other light, because, clearly, according to Pro, fiction is only a pack of lies. Is it?
I.b.1 Is it a lie that we argue for our limitations? Clearly, Pro is arguing for limitations, so, this cannot a lie, or Pro’s entire argument fails. Not t mention that it fails, anyway.
I.b.2 Is it a lie that one can complain, “I can’t [do X].”Well, Pro argued in his round 3, second sentence, “You can’t just quote…” Clearly, Pro is saying we can’t [do X],so, this is not a lie.
I.b.3 Is it a lie that Ancient Alienshas been on television for 15 seasons? Its popularity appears evident, and it is clear that Ancient Aliensbelittles the technology of our ancestors, so this is not a lie.
I.b.4 Finally, is it a lie that Shakespeare should put these words on a fictional character’s tongue: “To thine own self be true?” If we cannot be true to ourselves, we will be true to no one else, and any psychiatrist worth his salt would agree, yet, Pro calls it a lie. If fiction can express truth, is it irrelevant? Readers: to you is the judgment. I invite you do so, once and for the sake of all ridiculousness, if nothing else.
I.c Compare the last four paragraphs with Pro’s claim, “I NEVER SAID THAT!” to my round 2 claim that “…my opponent [Pro]finds fiction to be void of truth and wisdom.” In case it was missed above in I Rebuttal:“Fiction quotes are completely irrelevant”Yes, as I charged in my round 2, I.c, “Let’s be certain we track who says what.”Did I put the bolded quote in this paragraph in Pro’s mouth, as he charges in his round 3, or did he write it of his own accord?
I.d Pro charges in his round 3: “I would like to note that Con is putting on quotes as a source of credibility.” Yes, I am. I am glad he acknowledges this, only, he doesn’t. That was said in jest, in spite of the issues noted from my quotes and his rebuttals of my quotes in I.b.1, .2, .3, and .4 above. Are they lies, or are they credible statements, all, that just also happen to be quotes from fiction. Are they backed up, as Pro queries? If the quotes reflect truth, then they are credibly backed up. If not, then I lie. Readers: up to you. Judge as you will, but I defy anyone to say that arguing for limitations, that “I can’t” is a defeatist’s attitude, that doing is preferable to trying, and that being true to one’s self are just irrelevant lies, traveling around the world in the speed of putting on shoes, and regardless of how they make you look. Is it vain to want to seek the truth, even in fiction?
II Rebuttal: “What are the R and Ls?”
II.a The answer is obvious to the careful reader: Research and Legwork. Clear enough? It was only mentioned by Pro, first, in round 1, and twice by me in round 2, before I used just the acronym in round 2, and beyond.
III Rebuttal: “Ancient Aliensthinks men are stupid”
III.a The above quote of my round 1 commentary stands as said, though Con claims, “No, you said ‘We were stupid.’” Are “we” not men [and women]” Or should “we” refer to some other life form? Is Pro hyperboling?
IV Rebuttal: “Impose you own limits”
IV.a Yes, I suggested personal limits. Not that I agree with having them at all, because the first quotes I offered in round 1 would suggest I don’t believe we should attempt to limit ourselves. Others will do plenty of attempting on us without our self-indigence, just as this debate proposal suggests. Yes, I have been arguing against limits all along, and will continue to do so, so long as this debate endures. If Pro wants self-imposed limits, I will not stop him. His life; his choice. But I refuse to have limits set upon me by one not in authority over me. So, no, I entirely disagree that “everyone should have limits after all.” I am not everyone, and I trust there are others in agreement with me. However, to prove my argument, all I need is my own refusal, and the superior justification of my position.
V Rebuttal: the best for last
V.a Pro loses control: “Shut up, you condescending @sshole,”he charges, in response to my answer to his question of what I meant by “superlative.” I quote my response in full: II.b “Superlative debate participants? What’s superlative? says Pro. Research and legwork are usually involved. A Dictionary is a friend, but not if it’s kept closed.”Well, there is the invitation to R&L, yet again. It was a frank suggestion to research the meaning of a word, emphasized by mention that dictionaries are friends, if used. In reply, I am told to “Shut up,”as if I had not been asked to reply. Followed by an expletive that is sufficient, I charge, to lose Pro conduct points, at a minimum. If my reply was sarcastic, so be it, but it is not my job to define words; I expect readers to R&L themselves. I do it myself if I seek clarification, then look for context of the word in its phrase to determine, if there are several definitions offered, which should apply. I’m sorry if the expectation of another’s R&L is excessive, but will not apologize. It is a valid expectation that I taught to my children, who would incessantly ask the meaning of a word I used. Instead of replying, as I would not with Pro, I purchased dictionaries for all of them before they were old enough to use my cherished, twenty-volume OED. I told them, “If you look it up yourself, you will remember it.” They thank me, now. Then, they probably had the same childish retort as exhibited by my opponent. I’ve been called worse, but my mirror disagrees.
I contend that after that, I need no further argument now, and I have none but what has already been presented. I’ll rest for now, leaving my opponent to offer his conclusion, and then I’ll offer mine.
I.a My opponent quotes Twain, “A lie can travel around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”A quote that belies Pro’s entire argument against literary devices, because, clearly, lies do not travel on their own; they are passed mouth to ear. Further, truth wears no shoes, other than by literary device; which, quoting my opponent from round 2, “He [Con] uses literary devices, such as hyperbole: extravagant exaggeration [such as ‘mile-high ice cream cones,’ to make poetic points.”That commentary is not supportive; therefore, we must conclude Pro is wont to avoid using literary devices to avoid exaggeration. But, he just did.
1.b So, my opponent declares, in round 3, “Fiction quotes are completely irrelevant.” I presume he means that quoting fiction is automatically lying, as he alleged by his Mark Twain quote. As Mark Twain, was, himself, a novelist [a writer of fiction], I suppose Pro is using him in some other light, because, clearly, according to Pro, fiction is only a pack of lies. Is it?
I.b.1 Is it a lie that we argue for our limitations? Clearly, Pro is arguing for limitations, so, this cannot a lie, or Pro’s entire argument fails. Not t mention that it fails, anyway.
I.b.2 Is it a lie that one can complain, “I can’t [do X].”Well, Pro argued in his round 3, second sentence, “You can’t just quote…” Clearly, Pro is saying we can’t [do X],so, this is not a lie.
I.b.3 Is it a lie that Ancient Alienshas been on television for 15 seasons? Its popularity appears evident, and it is clear that Ancient Aliensbelittles the technology of our ancestors, so this is not a lie.
I.b.4 Finally, is it a lie that Shakespeare should put these words on a fictional character’s tongue: “To thine own self be true?” If we cannot be true to ourselves, we will be true to no one else, and any psychiatrist worth his salt would agree, yet, Pro calls it a lie. If fiction can express truth, is it irrelevant? Readers: to you is the judgment. I invite you do so, once and for the sake of all ridiculousness, if nothing else.
I.c Compare the last four paragraphs with Pro’s claim, “I NEVER SAID THAT!” to my round 2 claim that “…my opponent [Pro]finds fiction to be void of truth and wisdom.” In case it was missed above in I Rebuttal:“Fiction quotes are completely irrelevant”Yes, as I charged in my round 2, I.c, “Let’s be certain we track who says what.”Did I put the bolded quote in this paragraph in Pro’s mouth, as he charges in his round 3, or did he write it of his own accord?
I.d Pro charges in his round 3: “I would like to note that Con is putting on quotes as a source of credibility.” Yes, I am. I am glad he acknowledges this, only, he doesn’t. That was said in jest, in spite of the issues noted from my quotes and his rebuttals of my quotes in I.b.1, .2, .3, and .4 above. Are they lies, or are they credible statements, all, that just also happen to be quotes from fiction. Are they backed up, as Pro queries? If the quotes reflect truth, then they are credibly backed up. If not, then I lie. Readers: up to you. Judge as you will, but I defy anyone to say that arguing for limitations, that “I can’t” is a defeatist’s attitude, that doing is preferable to trying, and that being true to one’s self are just irrelevant lies, traveling around the world in the speed of putting on shoes, and regardless of how they make you look. Is it vain to want to seek the truth, even in fiction?
II Rebuttal: “What are the R and Ls?”
II.a The answer is obvious to the careful reader: Research and Legwork. Clear enough? It was only mentioned by Pro, first, in round 1, and twice by me in round 2, before I used just the acronym in round 2, and beyond.
III Rebuttal: “Ancient Aliensthinks men are stupid”
III.a The above quote of my round 1 commentary stands as said, though Con claims, “No, you said ‘We were stupid.’” Are “we” not men [and women]” Or should “we” refer to some other life form? Is Pro hyperboling?
IV Rebuttal: “Impose you own limits”
IV.a Yes, I suggested personal limits. Not that I agree with having them at all, because the first quotes I offered in round 1 would suggest I don’t believe we should attempt to limit ourselves. Others will do plenty of attempting on us without our self-indigence, just as this debate proposal suggests. Yes, I have been arguing against limits all along, and will continue to do so, so long as this debate endures. If Pro wants self-imposed limits, I will not stop him. His life; his choice. But I refuse to have limits set upon me by one not in authority over me. So, no, I entirely disagree that “everyone should have limits after all.” I am not everyone, and I trust there are others in agreement with me. However, to prove my argument, all I need is my own refusal, and the superior justification of my position.
V Rebuttal: the best for last
V.a Pro loses control: “Shut up, you condescending @sshole,”he charges, in response to my answer to his question of what I meant by “superlative.” I quote my response in full: II.b “Superlative debate participants? What’s superlative? says Pro. Research and legwork are usually involved. A Dictionary is a friend, but not if it’s kept closed.”Well, there is the invitation to R&L, yet again. It was a frank suggestion to research the meaning of a word, emphasized by mention that dictionaries are friends, if used. In reply, I am told to “Shut up,”as if I had not been asked to reply. Followed by an expletive that is sufficient, I charge, to lose Pro conduct points, at a minimum. If my reply was sarcastic, so be it, but it is not my job to define words; I expect readers to R&L themselves. I do it myself if I seek clarification, then look for context of the word in its phrase to determine, if there are several definitions offered, which should apply. I’m sorry if the expectation of another’s R&L is excessive, but will not apologize. It is a valid expectation that I taught to my children, who would incessantly ask the meaning of a word I used. Instead of replying, as I would not with Pro, I purchased dictionaries for all of them before they were old enough to use my cherished, twenty-volume OED. I told them, “If you look it up yourself, you will remember it.” They thank me, now. Then, they probably had the same childish retort as exhibited by my opponent. I’ve been called worse, but my mirror disagrees.
I contend that after that, I need no further argument now, and I have none but what has already been presented. I’ll rest for now, leaving my opponent to offer his conclusion, and then I’ll offer mine.
Round 4
Final Rebuttals:
1. As I noted, the use of quotes was purposely ironic on my part, to contrast the use of quotes by Con as evidence. As a result, 1.a and 1.b are false and evidence of poor/ purposely misleading analysis on Con's part.
2. I never said fiction can't express truth, only that you have to support your quotes with evidence that they are expressing truth.
3.
“I can’t” is a defeatist’s attitude
"I can't" is a really good attitude to have when you're trying to do impossible things. If it is impossible to hold more than X amount of quality debates at a time, then you should say, "I can't do that (X+1) debates." Assuming, of course, that you value quality debates.
4. Usually when you abbreviate something, it's a good idea to say something along the line of "I will refer to Blank as B from now on." As an example, I abbreviate Daylight Saving Time as DST in one of my debates.[1]
5.
I entirely disagree that “everyone should have limits after all.”
BREAKING NEWS ***
Based on the fact that society has decided that universally applied limits are bad, there are no more laws. Do anything you want, unless you personally feel that you shouldn't. ***
That is the logically extended position that you argue for.
6.
I’m sorry if the expectation of another’s R&L is excessive, but will not apologize.
What exactly do you think "I'm sorry" means if not an apology?
~~~
This debate has devolved to the point that instead of attacking my arguments or position, my opponent has called me childish, imposed his own standards of appropriate language, and suggested that I'm incapable of looking up the definition of words. My arguments are what they are. I am partially guilty of insult as well.
My opponent makes unilateral claims, such as
it is not my job to define words; I expect readers to R&L themselves.
which isn't supported by any evidence.
~~~
Sources
I Rebuttal: Quotes are not evidence
I.a I will show that in Pro’s round 4 “final rebuttals,” he actually has made a new argument, to wit: “the use of quotes was purposefully ironic on my part, to contrast the use of quotes by Con as evidence.”Yes, he did give an irony warning in round 3, and, yes, he has argued my use of quotes as evidence. But he has never tied the two [irony and quotes] as a singular argument. I charge a foul because Pro indicated that this was a rebuttal, and not an argument.
I.a.1 Moreover, I’ve already refuted Pro’s round 3 statement that, “Fiction quotes are completely irrelevant.” But he reverses himself in round 4, claiming, “I never said fiction can't express truth, only that you have to support your quotes with evidence that they are expressing truth.” I interpret the former statement, by use of “irrelevant” as dismissing fiction quotes as not able to stand on their own verbiage as evidence even ifthey are supported by other evidence of truth.
I.a.2 Further, as a matter of fact, as long as we’re parsing quotes, did Pro ever support his quote from a fiction writer, Mark Twain [see Pro round 3], with other evidence, as he claims is necessary, if you forgive the reversal of opinion between his round 3 and 4, as noted above, I.a.1?
II Rebuttal: Fiction cannot express truth
II.a I know, Pro claims he never said this; emphatically in round 3, repeating in round 4, but, he said in round 2: “Anyone paying attention will note that every single example is either a quote from a work of fiction except Darwin and Bach.” Following this allegation is a lengthy rebuttal that fiction only uses hyperbole; literary devices. Note, later in this rebuttal, the use of suspension of disbelief.
II.a.1 Pro’s round 4 alleges my “use of quotes as evidence,”as if that is not a valid argument feature. I offer, in rebuttal, my quote [reference [4]] from Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species,“…[had] been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one…”[1] Pro is arguing that my use of this quote is required to have still further evidence in support of it? That’s what he’s saying. I declare that absurd. Evidence is best given by quotation of an authoritative work. Fiction is best supported by its own ability to present suspension of disbelief,a legitimate vehicle of use in fiction to allow the reader to believe what is written as truth. “Suspension of disbelief helps your readers let go of reality and accept what you have to offer. Stories like Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings may appear fanciful and completely fictitious, but if you dig deeply, you notice that Tolkien pulled from many resources to breathe life into his works.”[2] If truth did not exist in fiction, it would fail as an art form. “One of the things that has been alleged to be the purpose of art is its cognitive function: art as a means to the acquisition of truth. Art has even been called the avenue to the highest knowledge available to humans and to a kind of knowledge impossible of attainment by any other means.”[3]
I rest my rebuttal of Pro’s resistance to fiction.
III Rebuttal: I can’t is a really good attitude
Ilia I am so glad I am not Pro’s child. My father told me I could do anything I put my heart into doing. I believed him. He told me my plan of life should be “Ambition, Planning, and Execution.” Funny thing; I don’t see “don’t try to do impossible things.” That’s counter-productive thinking. That’s thinking “I can’t,” and being convinced. Of course, there are impossible things. I cannot fly. I do not have the anatomical structure to accomplish it on my own. Well, fortunately, Da Vinci was not convinced, and theorized a means by which, with mechanical means now commonplace, to give me, at least for a brief period of time, the ability of personal flight.[4]
III.a.1 My life has been a fortunate adventure, mostly because I followed my father’s advice. I’ve been in over 30 countries around the world. I’ve been to a remote Thai jungle, on my own, equipped with only a map and orienteering compass, suddenly realizing I was no longer at the top of the food chain. That’s an exhilarating feeling that “I can’t” will never achieve. I just don’t buy Pro’s attitude. Would you?
I rest my rebuttal of Pro’s attitude: “I can’t.”
IV Rebuttal: Abbreviate?
I.a This will be the easiest point of rebuttal: What the hall is Pro’s round 4, 4 argument/rebuttal all about? Abbreviations? I’m drawing a blank., to which Pro says he’ll refer, but doesn’t. Since there is no reference to any argument of mine, but only to one of his debates in which I am not involved, I wish him good luck with DST, and that debate.
I rest my rebuttal of Pro’s abbreviations
V Rebuttal: Everyone should have limits after all
V.a In my round 2, already weary of Pro’s argument of limitation, and frustrated that he would deny my choice of unfettered choice of number of debates to engage simultaneously, told Pro to “Impose your own limits.”In his round 3 rebuttal, Pro stated [argument IV], “You've been arguing against limits this entire time, but I guess everyone should have limits after all.” This is merely restating his own “I can’t” position, and I am merely agreeing that he can have at it, but it not my choice, and I do not need his limitations. They’re his, not mine.
What this has to do with “breaking news***” [an apparent reference to a reference, but, once again – as in round 2, Pro fails to offer what the reference is], is known only to Pro, so, good luck with breaking news.
I rest my rebuttal of Pro’s breaking news
V.b Wait, there’s yet another Pro assumption, to wit, “Based on the fact that society has decided that universally applied limits are bad, there are no more laws. Do anything you want, unless you personally feel that you shouldn't. *** That is the logically extended position that you argue for.” Well, thanks for the tour of my mind, but, reality says it was merely a tour of Pro’s mind. He has no access to mine. I thought Pro was opposed to hyperbole. Pro is suddenly expanding his own argument to change a DART policy to “universally applied limits”on society! That is Pro’s illogical extension, not mine. I am restricting my argument to a choice to sustain as many simultaneous debates on DART as I personally choose, and not for anyone else, let alone the whole society, or even just for Pro. Let him decide his limits and leave the rest of us alone!
I rest my rebuttal of Pro’s hyperbole
VI Rebuttal: Denouement
V.a My opponent declares, as point 6 of his 3rdround rebuttal “This debate has devolved to the point that instead of attacking my arguments or position, my opponent has called me childish…”May I remind him that in his round 3 argument, he declared: “Shut up, you condescending @sshole…”Please review my rebuttal in my round 3, argument V.a; I’d say my “childish” reference was de-escalation, if anything, unless I am missing a nuance of “@sshole” that actually is complimentary. This all began by a request for a definition of “superlative.” I suggested he look it up in a dictionary, not on Google. I don’t trust Google, per se, any more than I trust Wiki. Anyone can post anything on both. That’s supposed to be authoritative? I repeat: R&L [for the hard of reading, that’s research and legwork], like, in a dictionary. And for that, I am an @sshole? So be it; Pro’s charge. He must live with it.
I re-rest my rebuttal of Pro’s @#%$^#$ hyperbole
VII Conclusion
VII.a My argument has always been simple: Let those who have time-based limits not accept as many debates as others can.[Round 1, IV.a] The DART policy can remain as is because each of have that choice and I presume we can all self-regulate our response to it.
VII.b My opponent introduced arguments that:
1. Limited simultaneous debates will be better quality debates [not sourced, but rebutted in my round 2, then dropped other than making the same claim, without evidence, in Pro’s round 4]
2. Some are more limited in available time than others [I accept]
3. Quotes require supporting evidence [rebutted in my round 3 and 4, reclaimed by Pro in his round 4, but without supporting evidence]
4. Fiction cannot express truth [claimed “irrelevant” in round 3, then claimed he never said “fiction is void of truth and wisdom,” also in round 3 – reversal of argument in one round – then claimed fiction can express truth if supported by evidence in round 4. A dizzying argumentive position not substantiated by sourcing in round 4]
5. “I can’t” is a good attitude [No sourcing, and a clearly limiting attitude]
6. Everyone should have limits [claimed in round 2 – several times – and round 3, but without substantiating sources].
7. The debate has devolved. Yes. Started when Pro called me a “condescending @sshole” in round 3 after my suggestion of consulting a dictionary, then doubled-down in round 4. Glad he is recognizing limitations. Clearly, rounds 3 and 4 by my opponent have unnerved him, but he has not contributed to the debate by justification of the outbursts by any sourcing.
All seven argument fail for the most basic of reasons possible: failure of R&L.
I rest my case. Vote for Con and retain your own choices of whatever debates you wish to engage, in unfettered freedom. God bless America, and DART.
I.a I will show that in Pro’s round 4 “final rebuttals,” he actually has made a new argument, to wit: “the use of quotes was purposefully ironic on my part, to contrast the use of quotes by Con as evidence.”Yes, he did give an irony warning in round 3, and, yes, he has argued my use of quotes as evidence. But he has never tied the two [irony and quotes] as a singular argument. I charge a foul because Pro indicated that this was a rebuttal, and not an argument.
I.a.1 Moreover, I’ve already refuted Pro’s round 3 statement that, “Fiction quotes are completely irrelevant.” But he reverses himself in round 4, claiming, “I never said fiction can't express truth, only that you have to support your quotes with evidence that they are expressing truth.” I interpret the former statement, by use of “irrelevant” as dismissing fiction quotes as not able to stand on their own verbiage as evidence even ifthey are supported by other evidence of truth.
I.a.2 Further, as a matter of fact, as long as we’re parsing quotes, did Pro ever support his quote from a fiction writer, Mark Twain [see Pro round 3], with other evidence, as he claims is necessary, if you forgive the reversal of opinion between his round 3 and 4, as noted above, I.a.1?
II Rebuttal: Fiction cannot express truth
II.a I know, Pro claims he never said this; emphatically in round 3, repeating in round 4, but, he said in round 2: “Anyone paying attention will note that every single example is either a quote from a work of fiction except Darwin and Bach.” Following this allegation is a lengthy rebuttal that fiction only uses hyperbole; literary devices. Note, later in this rebuttal, the use of suspension of disbelief.
II.a.1 Pro’s round 4 alleges my “use of quotes as evidence,”as if that is not a valid argument feature. I offer, in rebuttal, my quote [reference [4]] from Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species,“…[had] been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one…”[1] Pro is arguing that my use of this quote is required to have still further evidence in support of it? That’s what he’s saying. I declare that absurd. Evidence is best given by quotation of an authoritative work. Fiction is best supported by its own ability to present suspension of disbelief,a legitimate vehicle of use in fiction to allow the reader to believe what is written as truth. “Suspension of disbelief helps your readers let go of reality and accept what you have to offer. Stories like Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings may appear fanciful and completely fictitious, but if you dig deeply, you notice that Tolkien pulled from many resources to breathe life into his works.”[2] If truth did not exist in fiction, it would fail as an art form. “One of the things that has been alleged to be the purpose of art is its cognitive function: art as a means to the acquisition of truth. Art has even been called the avenue to the highest knowledge available to humans and to a kind of knowledge impossible of attainment by any other means.”[3]
I rest my rebuttal of Pro’s resistance to fiction.
III Rebuttal: I can’t is a really good attitude
Ilia I am so glad I am not Pro’s child. My father told me I could do anything I put my heart into doing. I believed him. He told me my plan of life should be “Ambition, Planning, and Execution.” Funny thing; I don’t see “don’t try to do impossible things.” That’s counter-productive thinking. That’s thinking “I can’t,” and being convinced. Of course, there are impossible things. I cannot fly. I do not have the anatomical structure to accomplish it on my own. Well, fortunately, Da Vinci was not convinced, and theorized a means by which, with mechanical means now commonplace, to give me, at least for a brief period of time, the ability of personal flight.[4]
III.a.1 My life has been a fortunate adventure, mostly because I followed my father’s advice. I’ve been in over 30 countries around the world. I’ve been to a remote Thai jungle, on my own, equipped with only a map and orienteering compass, suddenly realizing I was no longer at the top of the food chain. That’s an exhilarating feeling that “I can’t” will never achieve. I just don’t buy Pro’s attitude. Would you?
I rest my rebuttal of Pro’s attitude: “I can’t.”
IV Rebuttal: Abbreviate?
I.a This will be the easiest point of rebuttal: What the hall is Pro’s round 4, 4 argument/rebuttal all about? Abbreviations? I’m drawing a blank., to which Pro says he’ll refer, but doesn’t. Since there is no reference to any argument of mine, but only to one of his debates in which I am not involved, I wish him good luck with DST, and that debate.
I rest my rebuttal of Pro’s abbreviations
V Rebuttal: Everyone should have limits after all
V.a In my round 2, already weary of Pro’s argument of limitation, and frustrated that he would deny my choice of unfettered choice of number of debates to engage simultaneously, told Pro to “Impose your own limits.”In his round 3 rebuttal, Pro stated [argument IV], “You've been arguing against limits this entire time, but I guess everyone should have limits after all.” This is merely restating his own “I can’t” position, and I am merely agreeing that he can have at it, but it not my choice, and I do not need his limitations. They’re his, not mine.
What this has to do with “breaking news***” [an apparent reference to a reference, but, once again – as in round 2, Pro fails to offer what the reference is], is known only to Pro, so, good luck with breaking news.
I rest my rebuttal of Pro’s breaking news
V.b Wait, there’s yet another Pro assumption, to wit, “Based on the fact that society has decided that universally applied limits are bad, there are no more laws. Do anything you want, unless you personally feel that you shouldn't. *** That is the logically extended position that you argue for.” Well, thanks for the tour of my mind, but, reality says it was merely a tour of Pro’s mind. He has no access to mine. I thought Pro was opposed to hyperbole. Pro is suddenly expanding his own argument to change a DART policy to “universally applied limits”on society! That is Pro’s illogical extension, not mine. I am restricting my argument to a choice to sustain as many simultaneous debates on DART as I personally choose, and not for anyone else, let alone the whole society, or even just for Pro. Let him decide his limits and leave the rest of us alone!
I rest my rebuttal of Pro’s hyperbole
VI Rebuttal: Denouement
V.a My opponent declares, as point 6 of his 3rdround rebuttal “This debate has devolved to the point that instead of attacking my arguments or position, my opponent has called me childish…”May I remind him that in his round 3 argument, he declared: “Shut up, you condescending @sshole…”Please review my rebuttal in my round 3, argument V.a; I’d say my “childish” reference was de-escalation, if anything, unless I am missing a nuance of “@sshole” that actually is complimentary. This all began by a request for a definition of “superlative.” I suggested he look it up in a dictionary, not on Google. I don’t trust Google, per se, any more than I trust Wiki. Anyone can post anything on both. That’s supposed to be authoritative? I repeat: R&L [for the hard of reading, that’s research and legwork], like, in a dictionary. And for that, I am an @sshole? So be it; Pro’s charge. He must live with it.
After all, Pro declared in the Description of the debate, "...to demonstrate respectful attitude to the opponent." I am missing the respect expressed in "condescending @sshole." Sorry for my ignorance.
VII Conclusion
VII.a My argument has always been simple: Let those who have time-based limits not accept as many debates as others can.[Round 1, IV.a] The DART policy can remain as is because each of have that choice and I presume we can all self-regulate our response to it.
VII.b My opponent introduced arguments that:
1. Limited simultaneous debates will be better quality debates [not sourced, but rebutted in my round 2, then dropped other than making the same claim, without evidence, in Pro’s round 4]
2. Some are more limited in available time than others [I accept]
3. Quotes require supporting evidence [rebutted in my round 3 and 4, reclaimed by Pro in his round 4, but without supporting evidence]
4. Fiction cannot express truth [claimed “irrelevant” in round 3, then claimed he never said “fiction is void of truth and wisdom,” also in round 3 – reversal of argument in one round – then claimed fiction can express truth if supported by evidence in round 4. A dizzying argumentive position not substantiated by sourcing in round 4]
5. “I can’t” is a good attitude [No sourcing, and a clearly limiting attitude]
6. Everyone should have limits [claimed in round 2 – several times – and round 3, but without substantiating sources].
7. The debate has devolved. Yes. Started when Pro called me a “condescending @sshole” in round 3 after my suggestion of consulting a dictionary, then doubled-down in round 4. Glad he is recognizing limitations. Clearly, rounds 3 and 4 by my opponent have unnerved him, but he has not contributed to the debate by justification of the outbursts by any sourcing.
All seven argument fail for the most basic of reasons possible: failure of R&L.
I rest my case. Vote for Con and retain your own choices of whatever debates you wish to engage, in unfettered freedom. God bless America, and DART.
Alright, thanks.
You could ask him but yeah that's about what I remember.
"RationalMadman had about 13" Really?
No worries. Just add some detail and resubmit if you wish
Oh nvm thanks I guess :>
How is my vote still there??
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: User_2006 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:7; 7 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision:
[Arguments: I prefer Con's argument because he has disproved why we should have limits such as how many debates we can be accepted into. Con states that accepting too many debates is their own fault rather than their system's fault and the rules should be defined in person based on their own instead of letting the system define it for them. Points to Con.
Sources: Con used more outside sources, including arbitrary ones that actually make sense. Points to Con.
S&G: Tie, both sides presentable.
Conduct: Pro had used what has appeared to be a swear word in round 3. Pro also looks like he is struggling while Con is more natural.]
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
This vote does neither of the three.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
This vote does one of the three.
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
Frankly, there was plenty in this debate to warrant conduct points being awarded/taken away from either side. While the voter did identify an instance of misconduct, he fails to hit all three points.
To summarize, the voter must add significant detail to this vote and resubmit.
Fair enough. Apology accepted. AS irt happens, I am a writer by profession
I stand by the gist of my comment, but I'm willing to admit now I was overly hostile. The way I expressed myself was uncalled for. I am sorry.
The don't vote. My voice is what it is. Sorry to offend, but, that's on you.
Thank you for voting
bump
I started out planning to vote on this, because it's an interesting topic and I figured it would be a pretty simple debate.
But my goodness, is this a pain to read.
I won't act like Pro's arguments are structured as well as they could be, but my main bone to pick is with fauxlaw. All of these literary references and unnecessary flourishes in your writing only muddy the water. As far as I'm concerned, your arguments are 90% self-indulgent fluff and 10% relevant points.
I will remind my opponent that your opportunity to debate the subject has passed. Your rounds are done, as are mine. Stop debating the point.
"then claimed he never said “fiction is void of truth and wisdom"
If the voters reread the argument, or use Ctrl-F, they will find that fauxlaw is quoting himself here.
"did Pro ever support his quote from a fiction writer, Mark Twain "
What part of irony do you not understand?
"But voting on the 20 debates that someone makes and then forfeits are fun ;("
Are you talking about Ramdatt? I mean, there is no doubt voting, because forfeiting accounts for at least the loss of conduct points.
Yes, and History.com, too.
Wait, people still trust Nat Geo as a credible source?
I love limitation debates. It's an argument entirely in line with TV's Ancient Aliens, which tries to sell the nonsense that our ancients didn't know anything without the help of visitors of alien origin. No, we're not innovative at all, and never have been. You can laugh now; I am.
But voting on the 20 debates that someone makes and then forfeits are fun ;(