Instigator / Pro
33
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#2688

Resolved: Literacy is the ability to read/write and to comprehend. It is not one, nor another, only, but all together.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
15
0
Better sources
10
6
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
3
5

After 5 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
16
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Description

Resolved: Literacy is the ability to read/write and to comprehend. It is not one, nor another, only, but all together. Literacy must include both the ability to read/write a language and to comprehend what is said or written in that language. Further, literacy in one language does not imply literacy in another. Each language, even one’s mother tongue, must have its ability to read/hear/write, and to comprehend before claim that one is literate in that language. To expect otherwise is an achievement no better reached than that of a parrot, who merely achieves mimicry, but its meaning is lost to the bird who mimics. The same goes for other domesticated animals, such as the family dog, who may respond to commands, but this is not a demonstration of literacy by the dog. Non-commands that have not been taught to the dog are not comprehended, but merely heard.

Definitions: [all definitions from the O.E.D.]

Literacy: The ability to read and write.

Ability: The quality in a person or thing which makes an action possible; suitable, proficient, capable.

Read: To interpret the written form of a language

Comprehend: To grasp with the mind, conceive fully or adequately, understand

Debate protocol:

Rounds 1, 2: Argument, rebuttal, defense. While all three may not be required in all rounds [see restrictions below], argument must be included in at least round 1.

Round 3: No new argument, rebuttal, defense, conclusion

All argument, defense, rebuttal, and sourcing will be listed within the context of the debate argument rounds only, except sourcing may also be listed within comments within the debate file to conserve maximum space for argumentation, but only during the argumentation phase. No other external reference may be made within the context of the debate argument rounds.

No waived rounds. No more than one round may be forfeited, or forfeiture of entire debate will result. Concession in any round is a debate loss.

Rounds 1 & 2 will contain arguments, rebuttals, and defenses, plus 3rd round rebuttal, defense, and/or conclusion, but no new argument in in R3. No declaration of victory will be made but in the 3rd round. No declaration of assumption of the opponent’s concession or forfeit in any round. These conditions will be obvious to voters.

Arguments, rebuttals, defenses, or conclusions may not address voters directly for voting suggestions beyond statement of validity for arguments, et al, made in all rounds.

-->
@Intelligence_06

The proof of my Resolution relative to the necessity of comprehension is given in my R1, I, with citations [1] through [7].

-->
@fauxlaw

Your definition literally supports the Con position, unless you can prove that comprehension is included within the ability of reading and writing.

-->
@fauxlaw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

-->
@Death23

That is the biggest load of shyte in the galaxy. Congratulations

-->
@fauxlaw

It was a false and misleading statement. I think the motivation for the falsehood was to guide beginners in to making quality debate content. After sufficient experience debating here, one would obtain an awareness of the potential falsehood of the statement because it was not consistent with observation. I mean, strictly speaking, the statement was not true because people win debates without doing the things the statement purportedly requires them to do.

-->
@Death23

fact: I had no idea who wrote the statement of the debate entry page, but it was there as an instruction from site sponsorship. Shold I take that as a suggestion, or a requirement? See below;
fact: it says what it says, and there is no problem with interpretation: sourcing is a requirement.
fact: my resolution stated that sourcing is a requirement.
fact: my argument was supported in total by the statement on the page.
fact: the description set-up also says there is a character limit set by the Instigator. Is that statement supposed to a suggestion, or is it a requirement?
fact: the debate includes a countdown clock to register the deadline for loading a round argument. Is that statement of time a suggestion, or is it a requirement?

-->
@fauxlaw

"you influenced DA to change his mind, but it does not alter the fact that during the debate, the foregoing quoter was his stated policy."

From the text log, it didn't look like he changed his mind. It looked more like he acknowledged that the statement was not true. He seemed to be on that side of it even before I posed my questions, and I wasn't pushy. Also, it wasn't site policy. It wasn't listed on any of the policy pages. What DA says didn't directly impact the facts that mattered. The resolution was either true or false regardless of what DA said. Anyway, this is somewhat of a rabbit hole of denialism. I think we can improve our thinking by exercising better thought discipline when it comes to belief formation. More dispassionate and disinterested belief formation leads to better beliefs, I think. I've actually been completely unable to reconcile concepts of blame and responsibility with the belief that free will doesn't exist. That's probably my biggest denialism thing of my own. I've lost debates that mattered to me and it took me awhile to come around to seeing things as they were.

"If there was a change in the facts during the debate, I wold agree with you."

The facts during the debate were as follows from my R3:

III.b Above every round of argument to be posted, there is an instruction given above the argument form, titled “New debate argument.” It declares: “In order to win the debate, it is necessary to not only provide more convincing arguments, but also to specify the information sources, to demonstrate respectful attitude to the opponent and to write text with a minimum amount of grammatical mistakes.”[8] The careful observer will recognize the same four points in the Debate Instruction [W] as repeated in the Voting Policy [VP], and is reasonably alleged in the Code of Conduct [CC], so one might infer the following logic:

W
↙↗ ↖︎↘︎
CC ↔ VP


"III.b.1Here is Con’s celebrated “implied goal or objective.” It has been in front of him in this and every debate he has engaged in cold, hard black & white. Literally, and repeatedly. This argument is the hill I either conquer, or die upon. This is not an instruction to voters, nor to forum members, nor moderators, nor the site owner, nor anyone else, except... This is instruction for all site members who engage debate in a formal, organized setting; the DebateArt.com argument page of each and every round. How many notice the instruction? How many believe it is not a lie? "

There was the BoP of my resolution that sourcing is required as part of debate argument. Period.
Yet, you influenced DA to change his mind, but it does not alter the fact that during the debate, the foregoing quoter was his stated policy.

It's a concession... So long as the majority award goes against the side which conceded, the votes are not eligible for moderation.

-->
@fauxlaw

If there was a change in the facts during the course of the debate, I would agree with you. It would be the truth of the resolution at the time the debate was accepted that should matter. But that's not what happened - The facts remained the same throughout the course of the debate. DA contradicting himself didn't represent a change in the facts.

-->
@Death23

I used his statement on the debate argument entry page as a statement of policy and quoted it as I would and did quote any policy of DA if it supported my argument in debate. DA's statement, as I quoted, was in force at the time of quoting, and, therefore, should have stood as quoted. Your claim, by his reversal, was still after the fact, and should not have counted.

-->
@fauxlaw

Had he known that you were using his statements against me in a debate, I would imagine that he would see that it's in the interests of fairness that he provide clarification on them. I don't think it was material to his decision.

-->
@Death23

Yes, I remember; I'm trying to forget. That one is a sore subject. I thought you went over the line duping DebateArt into countermanding his own statement, without telling him he was weighing in on an active debate. At least, that is what he told me. Thus my argument that the debate turned into 2-on-1. It was, to me, an ethical disaster.

-->
@fauxlaw

Yeah, I know. OK. Do you remember that one debate we had on sources where the website said something that really just wasn't true? It's like that lol.

-->
@Barney
@Death23

"...to "award source points" means to vote exclusively for Pro or Con on source points. It does not mean a tie vote, even though a tie vote does award source points."

You do realize you've just contradicted yourself in a full 180 in that single comment. Ragnar is going to tell me that's the way it is?
OK, Ragnar, weigh in, please.

-->
@fauxlaw

OK. Yes, technically those votes did "award source points" under the plain and ordinary meaning of that phrase. But, as it's stated in the voting policy, to "award source points" means to vote exclusively for Pro or Con on source points. It does not mean a tie vote, even though a tie vote does award source points. Not everything on this site was written perfectly. BTW I really have nothing other than my personal experience to go on here. You can ask Ragnar or whoever. They will probably tell you the same thing.

-->
@Death23

Well, I could be wrong [not bloody likely] but it appears to me you have 2 source points as a tie from both voters. I also see neither voter's avatar is "nobody." I see that you have 40% of the votes in a concession. Does anybody understand how points are awarded, when it is appropriate, when not, and why?

-->
@fauxlaw

Nobody awarded source points

-->
@fauxlaw

Taking from the voters guide, as long as the vote is in favor of the party that didn't forfeit the rest of the vote doesn't technically matter

-->
@Theweakeredge

Thank you for voting, but the same comment to you as to seldiora. Show me how Con deserves source points for no sources given?

-->
@Death23
@seldiora

Y'all might read the Full-forfeit (FF)/Conceded Debates section, through to the last sentence: "These debates are considered conceded debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the side that concedes." IOW, a debate participant who concedes should not receive voter points. Seems clear to me. I see no, and there is no mention of "abstention," or any version of that word family in the policy. Show me that I'm wrong.

-->
@fauxlaw

A tie vote without any corresponding RFD usually means an abstention. There's just no radio button for explicitly abstaining.

-->
@seldiora

Not true. Maybe your opinion, but as opinions go, that one is missing its clothes. Stay tuned

-->
@fauxlaw

doesn't matter. Nobody ever votes sources on concessions.

-->
@seldiora

Thank you for voting, but I have to mention:
Show me a Con source offered in any of the three rounds that earns a tie vote

-->
@Death23

cherchez la femme

-->
@fauxlaw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjMffHG1V_Q <3

-->
@TXHG

The topic stands. The definitions are from the OED.

-->
@fauxlaw

I don't want an argument, I'm critiquing your topic and definitions. Take it however you will.

-->
@TXHG

Seems you want argument before the debate. Nope, not going there.

-->
@fauxlaw

But your definition of read is "To interpret the written form of a language" with interpret being fairly easily argued as synonymous or inclusive of comprehension.

Seems a poor debate that is just going to be arguing over semantics that you've already stacked in your favour.

-->
@Undefeatable

You will note that the definition I've cited in Description of "literacy," even from my revered OED, does not agree with the resolution, in its total expression. Therefore, how can the resolution be a truism? In fact, check another dictionary; Webster's, for example...
I am arguing that the definition of literacy, alone, does not cover the full intent of the word.

-->
@fauxlaw

seems like the definition fulfills itself. https://medium.com/literate-schools/what-does-it-mean-to-be-literate-bcd2e4c1227c

Why are you arguing truisms?