GIF should be pronounced GIF, not JIF.

Unfortunately I don't have time. I would if I could.

please vote on this

You won this debate it seems but I will not say GG.

This was pure dirty play by you. Truism of popularity. Utter B S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

round 3 brand new contnetion about language and pouplarity B S!!!!!!!!!!

B S!!!!!!!!

thank you I have gotten it out my system.

Well done you defeated a legend, even if you played dirty to do so.

Oh nnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I mean yes, do your best. I'm also busy and understand.

I'm entering finals week, and I have a major project due tomorrow night; plus I need to knock out an extra credit assignment if I am to get a decent grade.
I will not be able to properly read and evaluate this.

It is your DARTizen civic duty to vote on this debate.

Can't vote if the moment I see the topic I am biased.

Either way, I am disappointed in Pro, either for him typing a topic that is clearly a truism or not seeing how easy it is to argue his position. Mostly the latter.

Please vote.

The Topic is a truism.

bump, hoping for votes

thank you for taking the time.

Just skimmed a little, and this looks like a good debate with the immediate curve ball from con at the start.

I'll try to make the time to read it in depth.

I initially thought you were just perplexed by how I came to a certain conclusion, but now, it's pretty clear you just don't like my view of the debate. That's fine, we often disagree and you chalk it up to "voter incompetence", so if this is all you're interested in doing once again, then I'm not interested in continuing this conversation.

I'll point out, though, that when your opponent presents a new rebuttal in the final round, e.g. Pro's point that "There is a huge difference between how morals, science, and politics are determined and how language is", you have the opportunity to rebut that point in your final round. New rebuttals are fine in the final round, new constructive arguments are not allowed. There's a difference. If you want to be technical, presenting new rebuttals to points made before the previous round is usually out of bounds, but most people on this site get away with it, and that wouldn't have been the case here, anyway. I'll also note that debaters are welcome to present new constructive arguments in their second constructive round so long as it isn’t the final. Just because it upsets you that Pro did it doesn't mean that he was wrong to do it.

Jif peanut butter sound was turned totally against pro via 'gift' being semantically similar too. Con - 1

Historical usage of G vs original/historic pronunciation of GIF - Con 2

Consistency - either zero-sum or Con-favoured - Con 2.5

Popularity - Con points out that popularity can be totally wrong, we need to determine if it's right or wrong rendering it moot - Con 3 Pro - 0.5

There is no other way to interpret this debate quite honestly.

your vote will be highly appreciated, I am curious how you interpreted this debate.

this makes absolutely no logical sense to me, I destroyed Pro's round 1 completely tore it to shreds and turned it against Pro.

Then Pro builds a BRAND NEW case in Round 2, I kick it in the bud and see absolutely no way for Pro to win without violating debate structure protocol and making brand new points in final Round.

Pro does this and wins by 1 tiny baseless point.

That is simply unbelievable to me and I know for a fact that this is a severe anomaly. I will just have to accept this as part of the price of being a brave instead of timid debater. I absolutely don't comprehend how I lost it, I have reread it and to me, Con clearly won this debate in multiple ways.

There is absolutely nothing about language that makes it so that the popular option is automatically the best so much so as to render the less popular one to be ruled out.

they aren't allowed to do that especially if it's along the line of a brand new contention.

I destroyed Pro's case entirely in Round 1, so Pro built a case from scratch in Round 2.

I destroy that in Round 2 so Pro tries and grasp at straw that language is a popularity contest by definition.

This is nonsense, you know it and I am done discussing it. I have to accept there is a blindspot of voter incompetence and avoid debates where the opponent is going to be able to spring brand new attacks in last round and voters will uphold it.

That’s not a truism. It’s a truism to argue that what’s most popular would be appreciated by the most people. It’s not a truism to argue that what’s popular is best because popularity begets trends in definitions, and that those trends are the most pressing concern in this debate. I’ll also note that I didn’t vote on even this argument that popularity is automatically superior, but rather on the basis that this pronunciation’s popularity links to greater reduction in confusion. So, please shelve the self-righteous indignation about what I’m enabling when I specifically and directly stated that I wasn’t picking him up on what you’re claiming is a truism.

Also, I’m surprised I have to say this, but if your opponent presents a new rebuttal in their final round (which they are allowed to do), you are similarly allowed to rebut that final round rebuttal in your final round. Just because you didn’t take the opportunity does not mean it wasn’t available to you.

It is 100% a truism to say that if something is more popular it automatically is the superior option meaning the debate is a truism start-to-end. My second line of defense was defended against by a brand new final-round line by Pro that I couldn't reply to without violating the rule to not bring brand new things in last Round and it was insufficiently handled by Pro altogether but I can't explain why without violating the structure.

This was complete dirty trashbag play by Pro and you are enabling it.

From what I can tell, you tried two tacks with it. First was to just call it a truism, which I just don't agree is the case. It's not a truism to argue that popularity should be paramount in determining how GIF should be pronounced. Second, you argued that since other popular ideas as regards science, morals and politics were still wrong, popularity doesn't indicate how one should proceed. I agreed with the latter initially, but Pro effectively argued in his final round that language is a distinct category. I don't see a response to that in your final round, so I'd say that while you sufficiently handled it up front, you didn't sufficiently defend your handling of it.

I don't understand at all how you feel I insufficiently handled the popularity angle but thanks for voting.

popularity truism ooookay. No idea how I lost this, need to revisit and understand how voters perceive certain things.

still needs votes, ty if you do

That's basically the reasoning, yeah.

Well, it's gotta be catchy, if they want the voter behind it.
: D

There's not really a rule as to what initialisms become acronyms, other than ease of use. Eff-bee-eye is more clear and easy to pronounce. There are also "backronyms" commonly seen in politics, where you come up with a clever acronym then back-fill the words it stands for.
USA FREEDOM Act: Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act

The Ffffffbeee.

"The difference between initialisms and acronyms, escapes me,
Though I suppose initialisms tend to be harder to pronounce as an acronym,
It 'seems more a convienence, than a hard rule."

An initialism is when you say the 'initial letter of each word. An acronym is when those letters are pronounced as their own word, like the examples in argument, SCUBA, NASA, etc. I was merely correcting the use of the word acronym to describe words like FBI, there wasn't an important argument being made here.

Call me a pedant if you want.

Remind me about it in the coming weeks and I should be able to manage.

Would either of you be interested to (please) vote on those debate?

bump

thanks so much! I'll keep that in mind. I wont do it right now, since there is a month left, but I some other time. thanks!

Removed vote for insufficient analysis.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#sufficiency

RFD:
Sorry everybody! Here's my real vote.

Pro was equal to Con regarding Grammar and Conduct, however Con's arguments were much longer and more detailed. While there were good sources on both sides, Con's are much more reliable (I mean, it IS a dictionary after all)

So, even though I agree with Pro, Con has better arguments. Con wins this IMO.

Good evening,

Please review
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#arguments
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#sources

The whole thing can get long, but in gist, think of a vote as a short movie review with spoilers. These two debaters make it pretty easy with clear contention headings. You don't need to list every sub-plot, but if you were reviewing The Dark Knight returns certainly the main characters fates at each others hands should be mentioned (treating them as contentions, rather than as the debaters).

Sources tend to be tied so long as both sides do their due diligence. Any point other than arguments should only be awarded for a serious lead in that category, regardless of who wins arguments (every so often I'll find someone's use of evidence superior, even while they ultimately lose arguments).

Something fantastic about your votes, is you're a rare person who can recognize the difference between your personal preference and who you believe argued better; please keep it up, and you'll be an amazing voter in hardly any time at all.

Well in that case, Pro used Wikipedia and Wikitionary, notoriously unreliable sites. Even though moderation on wikipedia is tightening, I still think it is unreliable to a degree.

You used Merriam-Webster and Oxford, notoriously reliable and well known for being reliable.

Whiteflame warned me before to not help voters who voted for me make their votes better. I am not sure I can say any more than I said there, please ask barney or whiteflame for more assistance.

You should compare the arguments, mention what they were etc, explain why one convinced you even.

As for sources how they are used is also relevant, not just the sources themselves. It is fine to leave sources tied and not justify that. If you believe a side used them better and/or had more reliable sources to a degree worth a vote, explain and contrast some.

I simply think you had better and more detailed arguments. both you and Pro used dictionaries, however Webster is much more reliable. I dont know what else to say.

Where did you.justify the arguments vote?

I dont really know what else to say :/ sorry

I guess I can try one more time but if that doesnt cover it then I give up, at least for this debate

You didn't even cover what the arguments were nor contrast sources. I am happy you voted for me obviously but you must be trolling. That will just get deleted.

thanks! I'll re-do it now.

Reason:
Honestly I pronounce it GIF with a soft g (pro's argument) but RationalMadman ultimately wins this debate IMO.

Removed by voter request.

You can @whiteflame or barney and ask for it to be removed. You can write your reasoning here right now, comment by comment and link to each via the orange number at the top right of the comments' URLs.

sorry still figuring out the system

it wont let me edit or delete it but if someone does I'll add a new one with a better reason

That is not a valid reason...

got it, I'll vote after I read it.

Debate is done

this should be fun