Instigator / Pro

Mall

1389

rating

408

debates

44.24%

won

Topic

#2607

You're a Walking talking dictionary.

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi

Tags

People

Parameters

Publication date: 11.08.2020 05:04PM
Last updated date: 07.04.2021 11:39PM
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

Contender / Con

oromagi

1922

rating

117

debates

97.44%

won

Description

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.

Round 1

Mall

11.08.2020 06:52PM

Pro

The description will serve as the first round.

In addition to that, check out upon doing a search on the Google search engine.

Define lexicon

the vocabulary of a person, language, or branch of knowledge.

Give heed to that first part. The vocab of anyone.

Lexicographers do what?

Put together dictionaries.

Should be straightforward and obvious.

oromagi

11.10.2020 05:33AM

Con

thx, Mall-

YOU'RE a WALKING TALKING DICTIONARY

OBJECTION: This topic has no subject to the extent that the pronoun "you" is never defined by PRO. Since PRO left the idenitity of "you" wide open, CON will assume the rhetorical role of the undefined "you."

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.

OBJECTION: On the other hand, PRO's thematic intent may be figurative- as in perhaps, "everybody is their own dictionary."

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.

DEFINITIONS:

YOU'RE [contraction of] YOU are

YOU is oromagi, the CONTENDER in this debate

WALK [verb] is "to move on the feet by alternately setting each foot (or pair or group of feet, in the case of animals with four or more feet) forward, with at least one foot on the ground at all times"

TALK [verb] is "to communicate, usually by means of speech"

DICTIONARY [noun] is a "reference work with a list of words from one or more languages, normally ordered alphabetically, explaining each word's meaning, and sometimes containing information on its etymology, pronunciation, usage, translations, and other data"

BURDEN of PROOF:

Wikipedia advises:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard."

As both instigator of this debate as well as claimer of extraordinary claims, PRO bears the entire burden for proof in this debate.

PRO's intent is fuzzy but CON will consider the most literal interpretation instantly refuted by CON's own testimony and instead address arguments to the figurative interpretation- that everybody is their own best dictionary.

OBJECTION: PRO failed to make an argument in R1 and without his opponent's consent, forcing the contender to define the terms of this debate. PRO has forfeited any legitimacy in future efforts to redefine terms in this debate.

PRO1:

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.

SUMMARY

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.

SOURCES:

Round 2

Mall

11.10.2020 01:17PM

Pro

Do you agree that people are the source of languages, words and definitions?

oromagi

11.12.2020 12:24AM

Con

thx, Mall-

YOU'RE a WALKING TALKING DICTIONARY

OBJECTION: This topic has no subject

PRO failed to clarify

OBJECTION: On the other hand, PRO's thematic intent may be figurative- as in perhaps, "everybody is their own dictionary."

PRO failed to clarify

DEFINITIONS:

Without any objections, CON's definitions stand

BURDEN of PROOF:

Without any objection to CON's interpretation, PRO bears the entire burden for proof in this debate.

PRO's intent is now deliberately fuzzy but CON will consider the most literal interpretation instantly refuted by CON's own testimony and instead continue to address arguments to the figurative interpretation- that everybody is their own best dictionary.

OBJECTION: PRO failed to make an argument in R1

PRO made no reply

PRO1.2:

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

PRO2.2

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.

SUMMARY

PRO dropped all of CON's argument and failed to offer any argument of his own.
CON looks forward to PRO's R3.

SOURCES:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_language

Round 3

Mall

11.12.2020 01:01PM

Pro

"Let's agree that humans alone define language."

Let's agree that humans alone define language which is what we go to dictionaries for to define language.

But humans define language alone. Nothing else defines it, no other source, true source anyway.

The dictionary is the record consensus taken from the organic vocabulary or dictionary.

The only point , the main thing of this debate right here.

You do agree.

oromagi

11.14.2020 12:42AM

Con

thx, Mall-

YOU'RE a WALKING TALKING DICTIONARY

OBJECTION: This topic has no subject

PRO failed to clarify

OBJECTION: On the other hand, PRO's thematic intent may be figurative- as in perhaps, "everybody is their own dictionary."

PRO failed to clarify

DEFINITIONS:

CON's definitions stand

BURDEN of PROOF:

Without any objection to CON's interpretation, PRO bears the entire burden for proof in this debate.

OBJECTION: PRO failed to make an argument in R1

PRO made no reply

PRO1.3:

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

PRO2.3

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)

SUMMARY

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.

Round 4

Mall

11.15.2020 12:12PM

Pro

"Let's agree that humans alone define language."

I don't think you're denying this. This is pretty much what the topic statement is saying rephrased.

Of course people are the source of all language that pertains to them. It's common sense, common sense that we're not talking about any language a person can't speak. That would be an oxymoron. A dictionary is designed for who? The only creature that it was recorded from. So we're not going into red herring territory.

Now the only point to deal with is the one you made.

"Let's agree that humans alone define language."

The point is not about every language that exists but just language. What language? What language do you think? The language they the people***alone*** define. Again, this trip isn't going off course to red herring territory.

Humans establish meaning to words by the native tongue and so on before there were pages and ink. Which in a book we can now reference any meaning of a word as record of its inventor.

oromagi

11.16.2020 07:54PM

Con

thx, Mall-

YOU'RE a WALKING TALKING DICTIONARY

DEFINITIONS:

CON's definitions stand

BURDEN of PROOF:

Without any objection to CON's interpretation, PRO bears the entire burden for proof in this debate.

OBJECTION: PRO failed to make an argument in R1

PRO made no reply

PRO1.4:

PRO ignored all five of CON's arguments

PRO2.4

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

SUMMARY

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!

Intelligence_06

07.04.2021 11:39PM

#18

“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.

oromagi

07.04.2021 05:29PM

#17

-->

@Benjamin

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.

Benjamin

07.03.2021 11:18PM

#16

-->

@oromagi

Interesting.

What was funny, though, was the fact that you were on a whole other level of tryharding; while Mall simply were noob

oromagi

07.03.2021 04:33PM

#15

-->

@Benjamin

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.

Intelligence_06

07.03.2021 08:59AM

#14

-->

@Benjamin

Those aren't even essays when you consider Oro's serious arguments.

Benjamin

07.03.2021 08:49AM

#13

-->

@oromagi

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.

drlebronski

07.02.2021 09:31AM

#12

lol

drlebronski

07.02.2021 09:31AM

#11

lol

Intelligence_06

07.02.2021 09:28AM

#10

-->

@drlebronski

Because it is DebateArt, not Twitter.

drlebronski

07.02.2021 08:58AM

why do yall have to be so technical

Mall

11.23.2020 01:03PM

We both agree so both win for the price of one.

seldiora

11.10.2020 01:41PM

-->

@oromagi

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

fauxlaw

11.10.2020 07:50AM

-->

@oromagi

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.

seldiora

11.10.2020 05:44AM

-->

@oromagi

Dude play it easy on Mall. I could hardly understand your argument reading it at 1 am

oromagi

11.08.2020 06:06PM

-->

@seldiora

My nickname IRL is a play on the word Wikipedia

seldiora

11.08.2020 06:05PM

-->

@BearMan

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.

BearMan

11.08.2020 05:57PM

-->

@seldiora

Nah, this is so easily semantically kritiked.

seldiora

11.08.2020 05:34PM

-->

@oromagi

no offense, but you are literally a walking talking dictionary. Maybe you should've let me accept this instead. XD

seldiora

11.16.2020 08:06PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Mall asks a few pretty challenging questions but he can't prove Oromagi or humans are dictionaries. Certainly, con admits they write up definitions, but individual change cannot definitively change definitions willy-nilly. Mall could've had a point here where he showed growth of language according to culture and people, but he didn't. So Con wins handily.