Instigator / Pro
4
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#1800

The negating philosophy of "IF"

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

“IF’ ‘is the most useless word in any language because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true. The argument of “if” almost always begins by stating “if,” and it is virtually always directly followed by a wish as if it were true only for the wishing, which implies, of course, that the thing wished for is not a current truth.

Is this really supposed to be a positive way to being an argument? Well, I just did, didn’t I? But my premise did not follow with any matter that is currently not true. Remember, my premise stated that In fact, the premise is true and I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. ”If” is “almost always” followed by something not true; I did not say it was always followed by truth.

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:

I'm just going to outline a few arguments on both sides real fast.
Pro: "If" only describes things that are not true.
"if" is generally useless except when used for scientific proofs.
Con: "if" has 8 definitions and can be used in several circumstances.
Words like "antidisestablishmentarianism" are applicable in less situations, and are used way less often, making them more useless than "if".
Those aren't all of the arguments, but it's where I'll start.
Con states that if there are any judgments of usefulness besides truth, then Pro's argument automatically fails. This isn't really refuted, and Con makes a convincing argument that how much a word is used determines its usefulness.
Pro also concedes that "if" has a use, in the purpose of scientific proofs (which you could argue are the most important words anyways, but Con never said that so it doesn't mean anything for my vote.)
Pro never challenges the fact that there are 8 definitions for the word "if". This argument stands.
Con uses several links to definitions and wikipedia articles to reinforce his point, Pro uses no links or sources of any kind. For instance, the definition of "if" is a crucial point to the debate that Pro as the instigator should have linked.

Con wins arguments and sources.

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:

Before starting, I should specify that I find definitional debates to be among the most easy to grade as the standards are so clear.

Pro argues that if apparently only acknowledges untruth, which is almost immediately self-contradicted with measurable truth being hard to discuss without if. This hints at the implied difficulty of pro’s BoP, given that we vote in terms of if (pro wins if he proves his case, and con wins if he prevents that).
Con attacks this premise, showing cases where if is only referencing truth.

Con wisely brings in examples of words that have clearly lower utility, antidisestablishmentarian, and floccinaucinihilipilification. Pro asks for better examples, but in doing so demonstrates the value of if (“One might wonder, then, if a better example might be offered?”).
Con also brings in how varied a word if is, which pro does a good job defending that they mostly did not change the gist of the word and further risks excess ambiguity. This defense however failed to show it being more useful than long sole use words.

Pro attempts to move the goalposts, that the description did not specify “the most useless word” but merely a most useless word.

I should mention that the frequency of use argument implied utility, but is a bit of a bandwagon appeal. Linked to words without any demonstrated utility (as it was done), it was a useful supporting argument to make.
The any language argument I want to dismiss for excessive nitpicking, except the resolution outright specifies that it is only true if if is the most useless in any language. Which makes me surprised I did not see mention of zero utility words from dead languages.

SOURCES:
Con made far better use of evidence in his case. We basically have the existence of surrealist art, vs a dozen or so links tied directly to the debate. The word frequency one was very useful in directly discussing if, and the ones for those weird words was vital in proving those were real words and not just gibberish.

CONDUCT:
Con trying to argue after the debate in the comment section is a noted penalty, but not a significant enough one for me to sway the point. Something to learn from and avoid repeating.

S&G:
Thanks guys, I learned a lot from all the discussion of language structure.