Instigator / Pro
Points: 19

obi wan is a belt and a soup bowl

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
RationalMadman
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
People
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 24
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
Obi means belt in japanese, wan refers to a type of soup bowl. Did you think I meant Obi Wan from Star Wars? Well that can't be because I didn't capitalize it and a person or character's name is a proper noun.



In this page you can see that "wan" is a word for "bowl" although "Boru" is used as the primary example. "Boru" is actually a modified version of the english "bowl" pronunciation.

Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
Obi means belt, wan means bowl.

Published:
This debate is in the English language. The proof is in every single word following 'wan' being impossible to express in Japanese and hold coherently. 

'Wan' is the alternative context and meaning of bowl in Japanese, not 'bōru'. 'Bōru; is bowl, in Japanese. Wan is more a very specific context of it. Even so, let's analyse what 'obi wan' is.

A Belt bowl is an incoherent term. It's not a united noun-phrase and the first isn't an adjective. Obi and wan aren't connected by hyphenation, they are separated by a space. So Obi wan 'is' not anything. Obi and Wan are a belt in Japanese and a 'soup' bowl in Japanese.

This resolution is about what the united term is and is written in the English language. The proof is that Japanese is written in symbols totally different to the letters that Pro wrote the resolution of this debate in.

Is vs. Are with a Number of / a Pair of / a Group of
Collecting phrases like a number of or a pair of can make it hard to choose between isand are. Which verb do you use when you’re talking about a number of people? On one hand, number is singular, which calls for is. But people is plural, which calls for are. Typically, it’s best to use are with a number of. You may occasionally run into a pedant who disagrees, but actual usage is on your side.

A number of people are concerned about the lack of progress.


A number of people is concerned about the lack of progress.

Other collecting phrases like group of can take is when you’re emphasizing the group:

That group of protesters is sure to be distracting.


This series of books is phenomenal.

But they can also take are, when you’re emphasizing the individuals.

A bunch of my friends are going to different schools next fall.


A handful of new books are published each week.

When you’re talking about pairs, you’re usually treating two items as a unit, so it’s common to use is.

A good pair of shoes is a luxury in some parts of the world.
A good pair of shoes are a luxury in some parts of the world.

One language, two systems, three scripts
If you are a complete beginner, Japanese writing may appear just like Chinese.
But if you look at it more carefully you'll notice that it doesn’t just contain complex Chinese characters… there are lots of simpler ones too.

Take a look.

それでも、日本人の食生活も急速に変化してきています。ハンバーグやカレーライスは子供に人気がありますし、都会では、イタリア料理、東南アジア料理、多国籍料理などを出すエスニック料理店がどんどん増えています。

Nevertheless, the eating habits of Japanese people are also rapidly changing. Hamburgers and curry rice are popular with children. In cities, ethnic restaurants serving Italian cuisine, Southeast Asiancuisine and multi-national cuisine keep increasing more and more.
(Source: “Japan: Then and Now”, 2001, p. 62-63)

As you can see from this sample, within one Japanese text there are actually three different scriptsintertwined. We’ve colour coded them to help you tell them apart.
(What’s really interesting is the different types of words – parts of speech – represented by each colour – it tells you a lot about what you use each of the three scripts for.)

Can you see the contrast between complex characters (orange) and simpler ones (blue and green)?

The complex characters are called kanji (漢字 lit. Chinese characters) and were borrowed from Chinese. They are what’s called a ‘logographic system' in which each symbol corresponds to a block of meaning (食 ‘to eat', 南 ‘south', 国 ‘country').

Each kanji also has its own pronunciation, which has to be learnt – you can’t “read” an unknown kanjilike you could an unknown word in English.

Luckily, the other two sets of characters are simpler!

Those in blue above are called hiragana and those in green are called katakana. They’re both examples of ‘syllabic systems', and unlike the kanji, each sound corresponds to single sound. For example, そ= so, れ= re; イ= i, タ = ta.

Hiragana and katakana are a godsend for Japanese learners because the pronunciation isn’t a problem. If you see it, you can say it!

So, at this point, you’re probably wondering:
“What’s the point of using three different types of script? How could that have come about?”

In fact, all these scripts have a very specific role to play in a piece of Japanese writing, and you’ll find that they all work together in harmony in representing the Japanese language in a written form.
Round 3
Published:
Obi wan is a belt and a soup bowl.

Published:
The debate resolution is written in English.
Added:
Noooooooooooooooooo somebody vote for me. Obi means belt and wan means bowl you guys, seriously.
Instigator
#12
Added:
--> @K_Michael
You can revote with your original RFD as I took this debate seriously when it should have been taken as a troll debate.
#11
Added:
--> @K_Michael
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: K_Michael // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 arguments to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: owl is an incoherent term as Con says. I also award conduct on the basis of purposely creating a debate to trap ignorants. I would also like to note that I knew that obi meant belt before reading this debate, so I know you what you were doing.
And finally, I don't want the #1 on the leaderboard to lose a debate to the last place's alt.
Reason for mod action: The voter explains none of these points. Further, voting based on bias and not wanting someone to lose is not acceptable.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
#10
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
The delete option doesn't show up currently.
#9
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
You may be able to delete it yourself, I’m not Auden I’d too much time has passed.
#8
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
It’s absolutely no problem: this part of the rules can be pretty complex. Kudos for taking the time to try and understand them though: more people should be doing that!
#7
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Would you kindly remove the poorly constructed CVB I made?
#6
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Fair enough, very well I'll remove my CVB my apologies.
#5
Added:
Unfortunately that’s not what the rules say. The rules say:
“In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds >>>>or<<<<< if the voter also awards argument points”
The or is important. What this means is that you can award conduct points due to a forfeit if one side has forfeited half or more rounds - or if they haveforfieted a single round and the voter awards arguments too.
The rule is to prevent people going around and awarding a single easy point vote for conduct for a single forfeit - and forces them to additionally award argument points too.
#4
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
I couldn't care less what all voters are doing, which they aren't. The rules specifically state that the majority of rounds have to be ff to award a conduct point.
#3
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
Forfeit rounds - even a single one - are almost universally given a conduct penalty by almost all voters on all debates. Not making an argument and forcing your opponent to wait days is profoundly disrespectful, and should be penalized to discourage people from doing it.
I believeyour confusing the “Forfeit half rounds” exemption where you can award only conduct for a forfeit without explaining arguments.
#2
Added:
--> @Sparrow
Lol I’d debate this with you
#1
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con proved pro was speaking in gibberish. Pro then failed to demonstrate that a "belt of bowl" is a real thing. S&G due to the poor S&G being used successfully as an argument impacting the debate.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This is clearly a troll debate. Either it is a truism (Pro's case) or it is absurd (Con's case). Prima facie, it strikes me as absurd; the actual content of the debate is stupid and silly and obviously facetious. Arguments to Con because Obi-Wan, taken as a phrase together, in English, is not a belt or soup bowl. This is an English-language site; unless it was clear from get-go that it was Japanese, it would be unfair of me to weigh the Japanese argument. Conduct to Con--Pro's whole shtick was entrapment, which is inherently unfair.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Countering Ramshutu's conduct point since ff 1 round shouldn't be used to award a conduct point. If perhaps Con ff the majority of the rounds than that would be considered. But that's not the case.
Until Ramshutu provides to me a just enough reason for Pro to get the conduct point, my CVB still stands.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to pro for the forfeit.
So I looked at this resolution: and it was completely and immediately obvious what the resolution meant, that the words obi and wan had alternate meanings. I can’t view this as a trap debate as it was so blindingly obvious and there were no obvious semantic shenanigans.
Pro provides evidence that those words have the specific meaning in Japanese, and that seems pretty open and shut. Con even conceded this is what they mean in Japanese.
Cons only objection is that this debate is in English. This is wholly unconvincing to me: those words having that meaning in japanese, what part of this debate being English means that pro is unable to reference Japanese words? This is just nebulous to me, and as con conceded these words have the specified meaning in japanese, con effectively conceded the resolution to pro given that con gives me no other reasons to reject the inclusion of Japanese words, or that these words should not be assumed to be japanese.
The final point that it can’t mean what pro said, as they aren’t joined is even worse. I can’t see any intuitive reason why this would be true - and it gives the impression com is just trying to unnecessarily or unreasonably restrict the obvious resolution in a way that benefits him. As a result, I don’t think it’s valid for me to accept this points either.
As a result of these, and the implicit concession: arguments to pro.