Semantical Arguments: Definitions
< Return to subforum
If two sides have an opposing definition, is it bad to try and refute one definition and affirm yours, or must all definitions in a debate be accepted. To me, words mean have multiple meanings, so I think every meaning of a word should be accepted.
Blackflag:
omit the word mean in the last sentence
By
admin |
Nov 3 2014 11:55 AM Blackflag:
In general, the affirmative has the right to define terms if their definitions are not unreasonable. Semantic arguments challenging words rarely actually challenge the resolution and often tend to sidetrack the debate.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin:
If one side has an argument entirely based on a specific definition?
By
admin |
Nov 3 2014 12:01 PM Blackflag:
Then they're arguing a tautology, meaning a self proving argument (not reasonable). Or else, they're not arguing the resolution at all.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin:
Think of a verb for example. There could be two definitions of murder.
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law
Obviously both definitions can drastically influence an argument
admin:
I agree, but I've been in debates where the opposition has tried to dismiss my case by dismissing my definition. I don't know how to handle those situations.
By
admin |
Nov 3 2014 12:04 PM Blackflag:
In most resolutions, the affirmative would have the right to choose one. Personally I don't think it would drastically affect my arguments that much.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin:
I agree, but I've been in debates where the opposition has tried to dismiss my case by dismissing my definition. I don't know how to handle those situations.
admin:
There's one debate in particular that became a "Definition x" over "Definition y".
What side would win if the affirmative makes an entire case, but the opposition refutes it solely by their interpretation of the definition.
Are you saying that the affirmative chooses the correct definitions? Is that always fair to the opposition? Some definitions can be extremely selective and not generally agreed upon.
By
admin |
Nov 3 2014 12:57 PM Blackflag:
If it's not a definition that goes against the spirit of the topic, ie squirreling, then of course the neg can argue it.
Otherwise the affirmative always chooses correctly.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
By
admin |
Nov 3 2014 12:58 PM admin:
Sorry, I mean, if it IS a definition that goes against the spirit of the topic. Sorry.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!