Besides which, formal debate techniques are bullshit. It has absolutely nothing to do with which position is actually more correct, it’s all about playing childish semantic games.
Real world debate has nothing to do with that stupid little game high school children play.
Debate classes are good training for certain types of public speaking, they just have nothing to do with actual debates.
We are not talking about formal debate techniques: nobody’s arguing that we ought to designate a government, an opposition, a prime minister, judges, time limits, speeches from the floor, and so forth. But debating does have a vocabulary, and it’s stupid to bitch about someone using debating vocabulary in a debate.
Not when the particular example is counter-intuitive and only a very few people know what the fuck is meant by it.
The Straight Dope is about fighting ignorance, not endorsing it.
Well, now that it has been explained at some length, that shouldn’t be a problem anymore, now should it?
The day you actually have a debate is the day I’ll back you up on your use of the word. In the meantime, I’ll go with arrogant, although “off his rocker” would seem more fitting for the last week or so.
This is a great line. If there is ever a movie about The Straight Dope, this line should definitely be in it. Someone very high up, like the President of the Straight Dope or one of his aides, should say it after a very heated discussion about the current state of the SDMB. For some reason I see Michael Douglas in this scene; don’t ask me why.
On preview I see that you said “endorsing” and not “enforcing.” I withdraw my request that it be used in the movie.
You can consider my ignorance of the term not only fought, but defeated. Continue to use it, I shall continue to consider that usage to be ass backward.
Using a specialized vocabulary rather than speaking clearly is fine if you don’t want others to understand your points- this is especially the case where your specialized definition of a word is the polar opposite of the plain meaning of that word.
This House Believes: All colonials are crazed semanticists
FWIW I have never taken a debating class and have never participated in a formal debate, and I long ago figured out what “resolved” meant from context. You don’t have to be spoonfed everything.
Continued use of a counter-intuitive term, instead of abandoning it, is endorsing ignorance IMHO.
If the majority of people who read Great Debates happened to peruse this thread, then you’d be right. But I doubt it.
The simple fact is that if you start your debate with “Resolved:”, whether it was your intention or not you will look like an arrogant ass to the majority reading it. If you can live with that, or are willing to explain in you OP that it really means the opposite of what most people will think, then fine.
I consider opposition to this particular use of ‘Resolved’ in the same camp as those opposed to the use of the word ‘niggardly’ because it sounds too much like ‘nigger’.
Like some posters above, the anti-niggardly crowd was less concerned with the real meaning of the word as with the fact that few people knew what it meant, and that since it sounded like it might mean something bad, it should be avoided.
If you don’t know, it certainly makes sense to ask. Having asked and gotten the answer, continued insistence that igorance prevail seems somewhat… ignorant.
- Rick
Bricker, since the word “resolved” actually has the definition of “something that is no longer in dispute”, then that “niggardly” example is totally inapplicable.
Bricker, since the word “resolved” actually has a valid definition of “something that is no longer in dispute”, then that “niggardly” example is totally and completely inapplicable.
No, Revtim - one definition is ‘no longer in dispute’. Another definition, obvious from the context, is the opposite meaning.
There are plenty of words that have opposite meanings depending on the context. I clip coupons out of the newspapwe (detach them) and them clip them together (attach them).
- Rick
Hang on Bricker,
You cannot apply the word ‘niggard’ in a way as to be confused with ‘nigger’ without the reader willfully misunderstanding you, or being completely unaware of the meaning of the word.
You can apply the word ‘resolved’ intending the debate school definition tentatively forwarded here and yet convey a message of arrogance.
Therefore the two are not comparable since only one has ambiguous meaning. Your ‘clipping’ example is also moot since the context it is used in gives the meaning pretty straight forwardly through the addition of ‘together’ or ‘out’. In the context of an opening debate statement there is often no context to discern which of the two meanings is intended.
For what its worth I think that ‘Resolved:’ even in debate class is intended as a provocation to debate. It states that the opening statement of the debate will take off from the concept that this issue is settled, thereby begging the opposition to disprove the position from an underdog position. The cases where one certain poster has used it recently certainly fits that definition. Whereto its application is piss arrogant grandstanding that might have a place in debate class, but not in the real McCoy, which (however much it is all just an MB on the Internet) is what we aim at in GD.
Hence I say I agree with OP: get off your high horses, stop the piss poor rhetoric and stay the hell clear form this kind of cheap provocative bull crap, if you don’t want to come across as an arrogant bitchy little provocateur…which obviously the biggest champ of ‘Resolved:’ doesn’t mind anyway… so…
Oh, whatever…
Sparc
A resolution is “a formal expression of opinion, will, or intent voted by an official body or assembled group”. Like the UN resolution #345/2002.
A resolution is proposed or submited by someone so it can be discussed and voted but it is presented exactly in the language that would be approved.
The US would not go to the UN and say “hey, let’s talk about how bad Saddam Hussein is” rather the US present a proposal with very precise language saying “The UN, in plenary assembly and after a lot of arm twisting on our part has RESOLVED (a) that Saddam Hussein looks silly with that moustache, (B) that he is a bad guy, © etc”. So the proposal is discussed and voted on but the language is of something already decided. Then the voters vote for or against and the proposal is defeated or becomes, in fact, a resolved resolution.
So, what’s the format?
Cross-X? L-D? Parliamentary? Policy? Team?
I’d better get out my Kritiks and T-Files now…
…'cept, this ain’t the UN.
The damn thread is already in the Great Debates forum. I need december to tell me it’s a ‘resolved’ debate * in the thread title* like I need the fishmonger to hang up a bloody great sign inside his shop saying ‘Fish !’
Coming soon to a forum near you:
‘Your humble opinion sought: Brittany or the Côte d’Azur ?’
‘A Question: Why does my bottom hurt ?’
‘An angry statement: Use more damn KY’