Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
396
debates
43.94%
won
Topic
#5623
Definitions are valid immediately as soon as they exist or made up.
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
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1465
rating
30
debates
58.33%
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.
Definitions are valid immediately as soon as they are present; even from one single person crafting or inventing the definition.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
There's no sense in arguing over definitions just as there's no justice in arguing over words.
People use words in different ways.
So when you communicate with people, that keyword communicate, there has to be understanding of what is being said.
Simple enough right.
What happens often times is misunderstanding by assumption of what the other means by a word.
When you don't have a clear understanding, ask for it. Ask "what do you mean by that term?"
We don't get into "well you're using the wrong term or you have the incorrect definition".
We don't debate over terms and definitions because the point of words and definitions are for the use of communicating and relaying messages.
Now when contradictions are spotted with the use of the terms by the same individual, that can be pointed out and countered.
The importance of stating definitions as an introduction in a debate is to set the goalpost and foundation of an individual's position.
This isn't to be contested . There is no arguing on what the definition should be . There is no redefining it to fit the opposing side's case .
Definitions are not up for debate. Contradictions can be pointed out or definitions can be corrected according to a dictionary. This means if I say such and such dictionary says this, you verify that it does not, hence the correction. That's the end of that.
Now that we're on the subject of dictionaries, they are not the sources of the meaning of words.
The source is that which something comes from. Where do words come from?
Dictionaries. No. Encyclopedias. No
From the language, audible language from the tongue. The people.
This means the very first native tongue used to communicate to another uttered a language made up by words , sentences, phrases, jargons along with verbal gestures.
This communicated reality, what was occuring in it and the world around one person conveying it to another. Dialogue is conveying the life and energy of the world around two persons or more .
This world, reality through a system of whatever means has been processed with a series of labels and identifiers.
Everything that has a name to be identified is done so via language to communicate references to specific and distinct objects.
To further communicate , expand and expound the identity of things, more words are put together which are basically definitions.
So language and all terms are socially derived.
Socially woven into societal constructed fabric.
The time when recording came along with the advent of writing, the languages were written and documented.
Society grows and continues record and documentation as the language expands. But where do these documents and records acquire the information?
I think I just laid it all out . The document which is nominally the dictionary today references the use of a word commonly among the users themselves. In some, I can't say all but in some what is also recorded are the idiosyncrasies.
Now because it's recorded, does it then become a valid word? No.
It had to exist in a valid state first before being printed . Remember what I just laid out.
Does it become valid because of majority consensus?
No. Dictionaries can have uncommon usages as well.
When someone says "that's not a word", then what is it?
Is it letters tied together?
Yes. Well that's what a word is.
What really is the case is a person uses a word, constructs a word as it was done from the foundation but it has not been reported or recorded officially.
Why is a word valid as soon as it exists or made up by the user?
It's because it meets the validating or correct parameters of what a word is and is meant for.
A word is made up of letters to convey a message or some sort of communication. An array of words make up a definition to further in-depth communicate a single word.
This is all the extent of what a conversation, a dialogue, even a monologue delivers.
Speaking back to the consensus. An agreement on a definition doesn't make the definition valid.
Why?
The definition simply is already valid before an existing agreement of multiple individuals .
Then it becomes arbitrary. What are we going to do?
Play the numbers game and see which number beats out who last for validity, no .
That is not the foundation for validity. It is not the criteria for where validity begins.
I understand why people argue definitions and cite a dictionary publication against another.
People believe it starts with a dictionary. It starts with consensus or a majority or common use. It's popular, it's much might so it must be right. No again.
This is not the source. People in error hold it as the source of language. Therefore it is held as "be all end all". No . Over and over ,no. Wrong.
The source exists outside of the dictionary. The source existed before the book did. The foundation of language was founded first in order to put into the book. Persons are the origins of language.
I'll stop there. I've beaten this in enough about where the validity starts.
Nargleflark.
That doesn't make much sense. That's because it doesn't mean anything to anyone else but me. Because of that, I can't use this word in conversation. Therefore, it is not a valid word.
My opponent is arguing that this word is a valid word, just because I say it is. I can say 2+2=5, but that doesn't make it true.
Another problem. I believe the meaning of the word "definition" is one of those things you put on your feet, though you clearly believe otherwise. We'll have to solve this before we carry on with the debate, how do you suggest we determine the correct meaning?
Round 2
"Nargleflark.
That doesn't make much sense. That's because it doesn't mean anything to anyone else but me. Because of that, I can't use this word in conversation. Therefore, it is not a valid word."
We have several problems here logically. Any word that I don't know doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't mean it's invalid and meaningless. Hence it means something to you. So of course it has meaning. So therefore is valid.
Also what do we do when we come across a word we don't know the meaning of?
Check with the source which is the person who uses the term. The word can be used in conversation. How do you think we learn language?
It has to be taught. Now you can be speaking with someone using a word that person is ignorant of. You explain it, the person learns. We learn something new everyday don't we?
We're learning things all the time. That would include increasing our vocabulary whether technical or colloquial.
You're still looking at this inside a box as if the source of language comes from where it has been written and read .
Words and definitions start with producing a language. Who says languages are stopped in production where you can't continue building them?
Open that box comrade, open it .
"My opponent is arguing that this word is a valid word, just because I say it is. I can say 2+2=5, but that doesn't make it true."
False equivalency. First of all , arithmetic is universally standardized. Language is socially subjected. This is why we have slangs, vernaculars and colloquialisms. What means something to one is different to another .
But math is the same no matter who you talk to . Don't mix up subjective with objective.
"Another problem. I believe the meaning of the word "definition" is one of those things you put on your feet, though you clearly believe otherwise. We'll have to solve this before we carry on with the debate, how do you suggest we determine the correct meaning?"
I thought I was clear on this but I'll reiterate or paraphrase. What is a definition?
It is what further explains, expounds and identifies a particular word. Typically with a set of words because we're talking about expounding.
Each word in the definition has a definition or can be further explained or broken down. It just perpetuates on and on as a true equivalency to math. No end of numbers , no end of a language.
So to say language stops until it goes in a dictionary is fallacious. If you agree it doesn't, then that tells you its use , its meaning, its point, its purpose is valid making the words in use of a language valid.
What makes a language valid is it can be used for what it's used for.
I'd love to continue with this debate, but I find it very important we settle the meaning of definition before we do so.
I thought I was clear on this but I'll reiterate or paraphrase. What is a definition?It is what further explains, expounds and identifies a particular word. Typically with a set of words because we're talking about expounding.
I thought I was very clear that a definition was one of those things that go on your feet. Obviously, one of us is wrong, but how do we determine whose meaning of definition is valid?
Round 3
"I'd love to continue with this debate, but I find it very important we settle the meaning of definition before we do so."
My question is, do you actually genuinely disagree with what I said a definition is and does?
If you say yes, present your arguments. If not , go on to your arguments in attempt to counter my initial arguments.
"I thought I was very clear that a definition was one of those things that go on your feet. Obviously, one of us is wrong, but how do we determine whose meaning of definition is valid?"
You mean like shoes. Ok, if you want to call shoes definitions, I am now aware that when you say "definition ", you're talking about a shoe which is what I mean by shoe is a thing that goes on the foot.
See all is valid because language is serving its purpose for communication. You're just using the term "definition" synonymously with shoe I guess in this hyperbole. It's just an example right.
You tell me. But in your example, this is a demonstration of what I'm saying.
Now to further use the art of communication, what do I mean by "definition"?
See it's not about what is valid at this point because validity has already been determined. The question is distinction.
How do we distinguish from my use of the same term?
That's why we have an act called communication. See we get an understanding of what one another is saying. We get the meaning of any term being used by any individual.
So going back to your example. Let's say I'm wearing definitions. Well to communicate and understand, being you don't use the language "wearing definitions", logically you ask, what do I mean by that?
Then I go to explain. So somebody can ask is that valid or correct?
Then somebody else can ask according to what?
It all depends on what you choose to reference and say what is valid or correct according to such and such.
But language used in accordance to what it is used for is valid.
We've hit validity once we've done that.
An example that comes to mind after hearing an interview I'll go over with the term "racist".
According to the definition the person used, the majority can be or only is "racist" because they are the only group able to exercise control over the minority .
Others may say anybody is "racist" according to the definition of having hate filled beliefs towards certain groups of people.
So it is sound to keep in mind every time a person uses a word, what is meant by that word. Stop automatically applying general consensus.
I understand it's habitual but it does better service to seek understanding first and foremost because we should be trying to get understanding through a language at the end of the day.
A language is what is used to communicate and it becomes pointless without understanding. The general consensus is not significant in as much as clarity.
Now if the opposing side finally gets what I'm saying, the meaning right......
Really a case closed.
Words can mean what ever because the parties can communicate with words to explain what they mean. Makes sense.
But wait,
the words they are using to describe the meaning of the words they used, according to you, are also subjective in meaning. So then both parties have to explain the words they used to explain the words they used to explain the meaning.
But wait,
those words used, according to you, are also subjective in meaning. Therefore, both parties must follow the same process once again, this time they use words to describe the words they were using to convey the meaning of the words illustrating the meaning of the word.
If what you are arguing is the case, language completely loses all of it's value. The point of language is to communicate with large groups of people, but if anyone can make there words elephant what they snuflark, then it's the case that the plants do not actually know how to count.
Also, non of your argument makes sense to me, there are too many words I do no not know what you mean by. Can you please explain what you meant?
Round 4
"Can you please explain what you meant?"
I'll do a part 2 because we're at the end.
Language doesn't lose value. Nothing loses value that serves a purpose. Regardless of the definition one uses, the question is , does it serve the purpose of communication?
You didn't really refute anything I said. You using random words all over the place doesn't prove anything. You're intentionally throwing random words around flippantly. But language in its sincerity doesn't work that way unless the point is to be flippant.
But not all language interaction is that. I didn't get a rebuttal to the "shoe" example I countered.
When you say "this doesn't make sense" but don't actually have a rebuttal you forfeit.
So case closed for now.
I am becoming extremely confused. You must be interpreting words differently than me. I did have rebuttals. I made the words composing them up, which in your stance is completely reasonable.
It seems like this conversation has come to a standstill, as I am not sure what most of what you are saying is, and you did not explain.
Doing things this way is absurd. It makes much more sense to have single meanings for words that are widely accepted an agreed upon. People creating their own meanings would make every discussion confusing and without substance, like what this debate turned in to. For that reason, vote Con for arguments.
Vote Pro for legibility though, because I attempted to use Pro's reasoning in my arguments, and it doesn't make any sense.
So someone only needs to define "valid" as "green happy butterfly" to win the debate.