I dunno… ask the people who are defending it.
No, I opened exactly the thread I meant to open.
You said “you didn’t buy the defenses” of it, as if there might possibly be something wrong with it.
Not at all, but if someone said, “Ice cream is good because it’s chock full of concrete,” then–while I have nothing against ice cream–I wouldn’t accept that particular defense as valid.
Sorry, that’s and absurd analogy. No one has claimed that using “Resolved” is good; they have just been offering explanations of that particular usage, which is what you claim to have been looking for. I’m puzzled why you see presenting an explanation for why it is used as a “defense,” which presupposes that there is something wrong with it.
Shall we go through the dictionaries and list every possible meaning of the term “defense”?
In fact, I urge you to do so. Choose whichever meaning makes my statement less offensive to you.
I knew “Resolved” was just debating lingo for introducing a topic for debate… but really, what’s the point? We all know a debate is being introduced just by the fact that it’s posted in “Great Debates”. I would never start a thread with “Resolved”, just because it seems like it’s needlessly creating the possibility of confusion while adding absolutely nothing.
Would you propose a new rule for GD that no thread may bear a title in the format “Resolved: xxxx”?
Because what you appear to be doing is just voicing the sort of complaint normally found in BBQ Pit mini-rants, that you take umbrage at the idea that a poster, (the overwhelming majority of whom are North American), would happen to employ a phrase that they recall from high school, (and that is quite adequately understood, even if not favored, by the rest of the board), just because it strikes you as odd.
It is a “divided by a common language” issue. In the States, a moot point, (that phrase probably accounts for 95% of the occurrences of “moot” in U.S. English, even though it also appears as “mute point” in a horrible number of occasions), is a point that is now irrelevant. Of the remaining 5%, probably 3% are used in its more formal definition–but only among lawyers-in-training and their instructors.
Sometimes I start threads in GD aiming to get people’s attention on a topic I know to be controversial, and hoping to encourage a debate even though I myself have no strong opinion. In those instances I don’t use Resolved, because I am not putting forward an opinion.
In other cases I start such threads intending to support a given position by my posts in the thread. Using Resolved is useful then, because it puts me on record as being responsible for supporting that position.
If people don’t understand what it means, they can simply look it up or ask. I don’t complain when people use sports allusions, though I never get those without recourse to a reference work.
I didn’t say it was offensive, I said it was puzzling. Once again you seem to be putting more of an antagonistic spin on things than was present in the original post(s).
And if you choose not to defend your use of “defense,” that’s OK with me.
And, once again, I see it as you putting a more antagonistic spin on things.
If someone wants to prefix their thread with Resolved:, fine. No problem. I’m only curious as to why, given our lack of anything else associated with formalized debates, someone would choose to retain that one bit of jargon. “Because I felt like it” is a perfectly acceptable answer, IMO.
Essentially, the scenario is that the person speaking is proposing that the house agree to a resolution, in the same way that legislatures can agree to a resolution.
It implies that the house will somehow come to a decision (perhaps by vote or other means) and that a statement will be produced to the effect that “This House resolves: …”
So the speaker is proposing a resolution, and the debaters will line up “pro” and “anti” with respect to the resolution.
Ah, I see. I thought it was a new/added meaning to “moot” due to a debate procedure/practice that was specific to certain countries. Thank you, obfusciatrist.