You're a Walking talking dictionary.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Here's what I think many are struggling with particularly on this site when it comes to the dictionary.
People want to stand by the dictionary as a source for the be all , end all.
You have to remember that words and definitions are socially constructed.
Languages and native tongues are constructed by a member of a clan or tribe to communicate with other members.
One word builds on or from another from another from another and so on.
This is why it's important to not stick with a consensus as a be all, end all as definitions change. They change based on what? The true source , the people that construct them daily and over time.
You always seek what a word means to an individual or what it means when said.
Such as the use of the word " love", "hate", "worship", "war", "friend", "enemy","hostility", "racism", "accountability","slavery", etc.
Let's take the words "racism" and "slavery".
A person by the name of Neely Fuller Jr. uses the word "racism" to mean "the system of white supremacy".
Doing a going search online, you'll find Mr. Fuller's works, other individuals such as Dr. Francis Cres Welsing, Dr. Umar Johnson, Gus T. Renegade and a host of others that define being "racist" as not just what some accept to be true , "systemic racism" but "the system of white supremacy" as a global government system.
There are also those that use the word slavery interchangeably with penal prison system or with mistreatment.
So with all that said, it is incorrect in thinking or assuming that a definition hasn't changed or varied since the last time you read a dictionary.
Be it that there always changes due to the true source, the person, that is the end all , be all.
Please send your questions or comments if you absolutely don't understand something.
- This assumption has the effect of instantly disproving PRO's argument, since CON confidently assert that he not a dictionary, nor a book of any kind, nor an inanimate object of any kind. Since all dictionaries are inanimate and all DART users who engage in debates are manifestly animate, PRO's thesis is disproved.
- Figurative language makes a poor substitute for a direct thematic statement since all metaphor is by definition open to interpretation by the contender (and more importantly, voters) and at the mercy of the quality of the rhetorician.
Here's what I think...when it comes to the dictionary.... Words and definitions are socially constructed. It's important to not stick with a consensus....as definitions change. You always seek what a word means to an individual or what it means when said. It is incorrect in thinking...that a definition hasn't changed or varied since the last time you read a dictionary.
- PRO advocates the rebirth of the Tower of Babel but instead of a curse of lingual differences, every person is cursed with individual semantic differences.
- If individualized, custom definitions took precedence over learned definitions and shared definitions, every language would quickly devolve into meaninglessness, every individual's thinking lost in a individualized meanings.
- PRO gives us an example of racism meaning "systemic racism" but also "the system of white supremacy" but those two terms do generally mean about the same thing, the latter term only adding adjectives to define by race, so we're left with more confusion than resolution regarding PRO's proposal.
- CON finds it interesting that PRO offers a bunch of highly emotional human states and then one other word "accountability" which is exactly the notion that is missing from PRO's plan.
- We already use the word WAR to a degree sufficiently variable that one speaker may mean an "organized, large-scale, armed conflict between countries or between national, ethnic, or other sizeable groups, usually involving the engagement of military forces." while the listener may interpret the word to mean "a particular card game for two players, notable for having its outcome predetermined by how the cards are dealt" so when we hear the word used, we have to figure out the most likely meaning according to context.
- So when the Japanese Emperor Hirohito wrote "We hearby declare WAR on the United States of America and the British Empire." the president of the United States of America had to figure out Hirohito's intended meaning based from the limited set of potential meanings documented in dictionaries and choose the likeliest meaning based on context (i.e. a card game with the Emperor would be unlikely, 350 planes had just attacked Pearl Harbor, etc)
- Now comes PRO with the suggestion that the consensus of meanings documented in dictionaries and encyclopedias and filtered by context is insufficient because people construct new meanings all the time.
- PRO's plan would have Roosevelt write back the Emperor to make sure that he meant armed conflict and not a card game or some new independent meaning like friendship.
- If the meaning of words is always personal and subject to change what can be the value of any oath or contract, given that if the contract binds unfavorably one can merely change the meaning of the words for relief ?
- Currency is likewise a human construct and we can see in this instance how essential it is for everybody to be on the same page in terms of value. If everybody were allowed to determine their own personal, customized value of the US Dollar, we can easily imagine how quickly the monetary system would collapse.
- Social constructs require a lot of definition, out of which demand such references as foreign exchange rates and dictionaries are born.
- Whether PRO means that CON is a dictionary or suggests that CON is his own best dictionary, PRO is shown to be wrong. A shared reality requires a carefully curated lexicon of stable meanings, documented with consistency to minimize mistakes in meaning. PRO's plan would quickly create increasing gaps between the circles of our common understandings as individual need to be correct supplanted the common need to communicate, devolving to semantic chaos.
- CON looks forward to PRO's R2.
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/you%27re
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/walk#English
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/talk
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dictionary
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2532-qanon-is-bullshit
- PRO failed to clarify
- PRO failed to clarify
- Without any objections, CON's definitions stand
- Without any objection to CON's interpretation, PRO bears the entire burden for proof in this debate.
- PRO made no reply
Here's what I think...when it comes to the dictionary.... Words and definitions are socially constructed. It's important to not stick with a consensus....as definitions change. You always seek what a word means to an individual or what it means when said. It is incorrect in thinking...that a definition hasn't changed or varied since the last time you read a dictionary.
- If individualized, custom definitions took precedence over learned definitions and shared definitions, every language would quickly devolve into meaninglessness, every individual's thinking lost in a individualized meanings.
- PRO dropped this argument
- PRO gives us an example of racism meaning "systemic racism" but also "the system of white supremacy" but those two terms do generally mean about the same thing, the latter term only adding adjectives to define by race, so we're left with more confusion than resolution regarding PRO's proposal.
- PRO dropped this argument
- CON finds it interesting that PRO offers a bunch of highly emotional human states and then one other word "accountability" which is exactly the notion that is missing from PRO's plan.
- PRO dropped this argument
- If the meaning of words is always personal and subject to change what can be the value of any oath or contract, given that if the contract binds unfavorably one can merely change the meaning of the words for relief ?
- PRO dropped this argument
- Currency is likewise a human construct and we can see in this instance how essential it is for everybody to be on the same page in terms of value. If everybody were allowed to determine their own personal, customized value of the US Dollar, we can easily imagine how quickly the monetary system would collapse. Social constructs require a lot of definition, out of which demand such references as foreign exchange rates and dictionaries are born.
- PRO dropped this argument
Do you agree that people are the source of languages, words and definitions?
- Let's agree that humans alone define language.
- But many, many animals benefit from some structured system of communication
- hummingbirds
- Bees
- Elephants
- Mollusks
- Bats
- Whales
- etc.
- And some animals are able to employ humans words
- Grey Parrots
- Baboons
- Words and definitions are human constructs but many animals have some language skills and so people are not the source of all language.
- VOTERS will note that PRO has failed to make any argument for the second round in a row.
- PRO dropped all of CON's argument and failed to offer any argument of his own.
- CON looks forward to PRO's R3.
- PRO failed to clarify
- PRO failed to clarify
- CON's definitions stand
- Without any objection to CON's interpretation, PRO bears the entire burden for proof in this debate.
- PRO made no reply
Here's what I think...when it comes to the dictionary.... Words and definitions are socially constructed. It's important to not stick with a consensus....as definitions change. You always seek what a word means to an individual or what it means when said. It is incorrect in thinking...that a definition hasn't changed or varied since the last time you read a dictionary.
- If individualized, custom definitions took precedence over learned definitions and shared definitions, every language would quickly devolve into meaninglessness, every individual's thinking lost in a individualized meanings.
- PRO dropped this argument
- PRO gives us an example of racism meaning "systemic racism" but also "the system of white supremacy" but those two terms do generally mean about the same thing, the latter term only adding adjectives to define by race, so we're left with more confusion than resolution regarding PRO's proposal.
- PRO dropped this argument
- CON finds it interesting that PRO offers a bunch of highly emotional human states and then one other word "accountability" which is exactly the notion that is missing from PRO's plan.
- PRO dropped this argument
- If the meaning of words is always personal and subject to change what can be the value of any oath or contract, given that if the contract binds unfavorably one can merely change the meaning of the words for relief ?
- PRO dropped this argument
- Currency is likewise a human construct and we can see in this instance how essential it is for everybody to be on the same page in terms of value. If everybody were allowed to determine their own personal, customized value of the US Dollar, we can easily imagine how quickly the monetary system would collapse. Social constructs require a lot of definition, out of which demand such references as foreign exchange rates and dictionaries are born.
- PRO dropped this argument
R2: Do you agree that people are the source of languages, words and definitions?
- Let's agree that humans alone define language.
- But many, many animals benefit from some structured system of communication
- Words and definitions are human constructs but many animals have some language skills and so people are not the source of all language.
The dictionary is the record consensus taken from the organic vocabulary or dictionary. The only point , the main thing of this debate right here.
- OBJECTION: Pro is now claiming that his secret thesis was something like "the dictionary is the record[ed] consensus taken from the organic vocabulary"
- R3 of a four round debate is too late to modify thesis. PRO is stuck proving that CON is himself a dictionary or that humans themselves are their own best dictionaries. Switching to some obvious thesis like dictionaries are taken from vocabulary would be argument in bad faith.
- Let's note that" the dictionary is a consensus of vocabulary" contradicts both "CON is a dictionary" as well as "humans are their own best dictionaries"
- In fact, PRO argued directly against the notion of dictionaries representing consensus:
This is why it's important to not stick with a consensus as a be all, end all as definitions change
You always seek what a word means to an individual or what it means when said.
There are also those that use the word slavery interchangeably with penal prison system or with mistreatment.
it is incorrect in thinking or assuming that a definition hasn't changed or varied since the last time you read a dictionary
- (because individuals may have changed a word's meaning since reading a dictionary)
- PRO's R3 entirely contradicts PRO's debate description.
- If the human consensus is what provides words meanings, then dictionaries take priority over individual understandings of what a word means.
- If Individual understanding is what provides words meaning (humans are their own best dictionary) then individual meaning takes priority before human consensus and dictionaries are essentially useless.
- CON looks forward to PRO's R4.
- CON's definitions stand
- Without any objection to CON's interpretation, PRO bears the entire burden for proof in this debate.
- PRO made no reply
- PRO ignored all five of CON's arguments
R3: The dictionary is the record consensus taken from the organic vocabulary or dictionary. The only point , the main thing of this debate right here.
- OBJECTION: Pro is now claiming that his secret thesis was something like "the dictionary is the record[ed] consensus taken from the organic vocabulary"
- R3 of a four round debate is too late to modify thesis. PRO is stuck proving that CON is himself a dictionary or that humans themselves are their own best dictionaries. Switching to some obvious thesis like dictionaries are taken from vocabulary would be argument in bad faith.
- PRO dropped this argument
- Let's note that" the dictionary is a consensus of vocabulary" contradicts both "CON is a dictionary" as well as "humans are their own best dictionaries"
- In fact, PRO argued directly against the notion of dictionaries representing consensus:
This is why it's important to not stick with a consensus as a be all, end all as definitions change
You always seek what a word means to an individual or what it means when said.
There are also those that use the word slavery interchangeably with penal prison system or with mistreatment.
it is incorrect in thinking or assuming that a definition hasn't changed or varied since the last time you read a dictionary
- (because individuals may have changed a word's meaning since reading a dictionary)
- PRO dropped this argument
- In the TOPIC sentence, VOTERS will note that PRO instigated this debate with either a literal falsehood or a vague metaphor (You are a dictionary)
- In the DESCRIPTION, PRO seemed to expand the metaphor to mean something like "you are your own best dictionary."
People want to stand by the dictionary as a source for the be all , end all..... it is incorrect in thinking or assuming that a definition hasn't changed or varied since the last time you read a dictionary. Be it that there always changes due to the true source, the person, that is the end all , be all.
- That is, never mind dictionaries, one should always check in with the speaker to discover the true semantic intent of any word because individual understanding takes priority over the consensus understanding of any word.
- PRO made no argument in the first and second rounds of the debate
- In the third round and finals PRO tried a bit of lame wordplay in place of an argument. PRO took CON's statement:
- humans alone define language but many animals benefit from some structured system of communication
- and falsely asserted that "humans alone define language" concedes PRO's argument that "individuals, not dictionaries define language."
- CON's obvious intent was "humans alone and not animals" rather than "humans alone and not dictionaries"
- CON calls this semantic sleight an argument made in bad faith on the part of PRO.
- VOTERS will note that PRO never addressed CON's attempts to clarify thesis and never bothered to prove that "individual human understandings of words ought to take precedence over collective, consensus understandings of words as offered in dictionaries.
- CON asks VOTERS to find arguments in favor of CON since PRO never really made a case for either interpretation of the topic "You're a walking, talking dictionary."
- Thanks to Mall for instigating this debate
- Thanks to VOTERS for their kind consideration
- Please VOTE CON!
“Walking talking dictionary”
To be fair, any crippled or mute person would win this if he gives his medical proof.
Not only is he not a dictionary, he isn’t even walking talking.
I'd hardly call Mall a noob by the time he initiated this debate- he'd been submitting a bunch of debates over the previous 8 months- he'd had more than 40 debates by this time. This was our fifth debate together and was specifically re-litigating a point that he'd lost on in two prior debates. Mall was specifically requesting another debate with me and it can't be said he didn't know exactly what kind of treatment he was asking for.
Interesting.
What was funny, though, was the fact that you were on a whole other level of tryharding; while Mall simply were noob
For context, in a previous debate Mall had argued that there was nothing wrong with promoting "white power" because words mean whatever individuals want them to mean and he might simply redefine "white power" as meaning something non-racist, clean energy for example. Here, Mall is trying to defend the principle that words mean whatever people want them to mean, which I call a return to the Tower of Babel.
Those aren't even essays when you consider Oro's serious arguments.
In R2, your response to a single sentence be like: "I'm gonna end this man's whole career".
You literally wrote an entire essay to answer a question.
lol
lol
Because it is DebateArt, not Twitter.
why do yall have to be so technical
We both agree so both win for the price of one.
Let’s be honest, if pro was whiteflame he’d already have won this debate by R2, if the premise was what I thought it was (persons define the language equally or better than the dictionary, something like that). Sadly mall isn’t whiteflame
Rhetorician! That's great! Nope, sorry, you don't get to play humility in this one. Be the book... and the secret is there is no spoon.
Dude play it easy on Mall. I could hardly understand your argument reading it at 1 am
My nickname IRL is a play on the word Wikipedia
obviously. But if pro had been Whiteflame and said no kritik, shared bop, with the resolution being closer to that People Are Effectively Dictionaries, then Oromagi would crumble down.
Nah, this is so easily semantically kritiked.
no offense, but you are literally a walking talking dictionary. Maybe you should've let me accept this instead. XD