Resolved: You simply don’t understand the use of the term, and resent that others do.
Didn’t any of you guys ever watch Firing Line? Sheesh, this is just standard debate protocol [in the US].
No. “Moot” has two different and somewhat contradictory definitions. As generally used anymore (at least in the US) it generally means something pointless to discuss. But in its original meaning it was something to be discussed. The earlier definition is what is intended when used in the context of debate.
Here’s the usage note from the American Heritage Dictionary:
If, indeed, you state that “you have resolved” or if you state “the matter was resolved,” then the usage is consistent across all the nations separated by English.
There just happens to be a separate usage in North America for a sentence that begins with the single expression “Resolved:”. This is not really unique as demonstrated by the difference between the usage of the verb “table” between the British and U.S. legislative groups, where in British it means “throw it on out the table for discussion” and in American it means “throw the paperwork on the table and stop talking about it while we move on to some other topic.”
I vote that while it may technically and formally correct, the use of “resolved” just looks like a poor attempt to be high falutin and comes off as prickish.
In some ways, it’s analogous to stating a “null hypothesis” in science. It provides a formal statement of a proposition that can either be supported or falsified. The statement itself doesn’t mean that the proposition is understood by the participants to be true. It’s not quite the same as a null hypothesis, since it is somewhat arbitrary which side of the argument is stated as “Resolved”; a null hypothesis reflects the situation if your favored hypothesis is not true.
Or how the word “try” is used in rugby. Nice try = nice goal, but most Americans (unfamiliar with rugby) would assume: nice try = nice, though failed, attempt at a goal.
Why can’t it just be a custom you were unfamiliar with?
I was always familiar with the phrase as a proposal coming from a committee of some type. Say we are a city council and want to assess a two dollar fee per resident for city sewage improvement. Our final statement, if accepted, would read, “Resolved: Each resident shall be assessed a two dollar fee for city sewage improvement”.
So, as a member, I want my proposal to be debated on, and members can see the full and final text of my proposal by me writing it in final form. In a similar way, if a poster here starts a thread with “Resolved: All guns should be banned” he is giving his final statement that he would like agreement on and is inviting debate on the merits of the proposal.
Do you anti-Resolved folks get your panties in a bunch when you’re on a sailboat and people use words like “port, starboard, sheet, tack” instead of “left, right, rope, turn”? It’s SOP for a specialty to have its own jargon. Debating is no different, yo!
Do you make starboard turns in your car? Do you clean the air conditioning vents in your bulkheads and in the overhead when you’re at home? Do janitors in your office building swab the deck in the wardroom? Do you remove your cover when a funeral passes by?
Resolved: Der Trihs is always right.
Are these threads mostly in a forum called “Great Debates”?
Rhymers don’t respond to teasing. There is a sacred story that explains why.
Resolved: Der Trihs is always right means only I wish to debate the proposition that Der Trihs is infallible.
ETA: Words have more than one meaning, you know, and the meaning of terms of art is not always identical to the most common usage. F’instance, when I refer to the theory of evolution, I am not asserting that common descent, variation through modifiation, and survival of the fittest are rough guesses, now am I?
So what?
When I begin a debate by typing Resolved: People named Rhymer are a bunch of weenies, I am following a certain form, one customary in a fairly large venue for the opening of a debate. And if I were a Marine in uniform, reminding a junior Marine to take his hat off in the circumstance you name, I would most certainly refer to removing my cover.
I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say. That all jargon is wrong…? That mixing jargon from one activity to another is wrong…? And how does that apply to the topic under discussion?
Bolding mine.
Is there a “not” missing somewhere here, or is this another “divided by a common language” thing? If the latter, that really is a different usage. So is the “table” thing - I can see that causing confusion!
Anyway, my point is that “moot” seems to me to have the sense of a proposal that is up for general discussion, rather than one that is to be formally defended or opposed.
“Resolved: proposition x is true”, in the introduction of a team debate implies that "we’re going to be debating the truth of proposition ", and thereby suggests that we may ultimately decide it isn’t true. But it is still a correct usage of the word resolved, since it really means that one team is going to take the pro-x position and their opponents will take the anti-x counter-position.
We have a forum called Great Debates, it is true, but neither that forum nor the board as a whole is a venue for formalized debate. They almost never take place here.
None of the other trappings are used in GD (or anywhere else on the board, for that matter). I mean, the debates aren’t moderated, there is no time limit, anyone can pop in with their opinion, topics frequently get sidetracked, and nobody is ever willing and equipped to argue for either side.
The biggest difference is that our debates don’t even fall into Pro / Con, For / Against, Affirmative / Negative categories–on any topic, a thousand shades of grey can be explored.
Given that there is almost nothing else about our debates that resembles a formalized debate–including the very reason for using the term Resolved:–why retain that one bit of jargon?
ETA: I should add that I don’t much care one way or another about the use of Resolved:. I was just curious as to what it signified. So far, though, I don’t buy the defenses given for its use here.
Why on Earth is it something that has to be defended?
I don’t know that this should matter, but the debates are moderated, and they are shut down when they are deemed to have expired.
Anyway, maybe you meant to open a Pit thread instead of a thread in this forum.