Instigator / Pro
4
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
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
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

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

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
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
7
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.

“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.

-->
@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.

-->
@oromagi

Interesting.

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

-->
@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.

-->
@Benjamin

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

-->
@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.

lol

lol

-->
@drlebronski

Because it is DebateArt, not Twitter.

why do yall have to be so technical

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

-->
@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

-->
@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.

-->
@oromagi

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

-->
@seldiora

My nickname IRL is a play on the word Wikipedia

-->
@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.

-->
@seldiora

Nah, this is so easily semantically kritiked.

-->
@oromagi

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