I agree it is superfluous and detracts from the title being short an descriptive.
Just to expand on my previous post: That language makes sense when one is presenting a proposal for a formal resolution which is already precisely worded and is going to be debated before it is voted on. The resolution with the vote will then be adopted or not.
If you see bills in Congress and other legislatures you will often see that language: “Considering that blah blah blah and further considering that bleh bleh bleh, be it RESOLVED that we nail a few interns etc etc”
But that language makes no sense in a discussion like GD where nothing is going to be voted or resolved in the end.
I will certainly agree that using the term in GD is redundant. And that ANY poster, beginning with ‘Resolved’ or not, ought to adhere to some semblence of reasonable debating rules.
I’m not sure I see the arrogance. As I have read it, it simplt offers the premise for a debate. If someone doesn’t understand the debate temr of art, then I can see the arrogance… but it’s not understanding the word that provides the offense for niggardly.
In both cases, understanding the meaning removes the offense.
Bricker, there is no valid definition of niggardly that has annything to do with the “n” word. Reading the word “resolved” AS “resolved” rather than the exact opposite is a valid definition, I would argue a more valid definition.
You’re taking for granted that there is a meaning to ‘Resolved:’ that is unambiguous and can be agreed upon with some sensible consensus. There isn’t. As I said there has been one meaning tentatively forwarded, I happen to disagree with it.
sailor has meanwhile furnished us with a more correct usage of the word in debate circumstances that aren’t ‘Debate 101 For Sophomores’.
Spinning on sailor’s excellent clarification the pretence and arrogance of using it in casual debate increases even further since it implicitly conveys an official status to an opinion that is in fact only offered up to debate, and is, as London_Calling and sailor note, never going to be ‘resolved’ in the official form of a resolution. The arrogance lies in pretending that the proposed position is so obvious that it should be. To anyone who disagrees and many who agree this comes across as grandstanding.
So what do we have so far?
Three proposed usages of the term ‘Resolved:’ in debate circumstances. All arguably correct (although sailor’s is the most sensible IMHO) two of those are seen as arrogant applications in the present circumstance, one isn’t. Show me a similar problem with ‘niggard’ or niggardly’.
Note that sailor’s definition is not ambiguous when applied in the correct manner and circumstance, while as both other applications remain open to interpretation - therefore I suggest that we rest with sailor’s definition. The conclusion must then be that it’s ignorant misuse of a term to start any GD thread that way and hence december’s previously forwarded defense of his usage has been pulverized as his rhetoric bulwarks are usually wont to be.
Just to remind everyone – he’s even got us debating one single word in one of his damn thread* titles now*. Divide and rule !
FWIW, I think he knows exactly what he’s doing. Same idea with the recent thread that purported to be a direct quote from the Guardian – if people don’t read too far into the thread they can come away with completely the wrong impression.
I wonder if it’s clear evidence that he sees himself as part of a propaganda war in which his foot soldier role is to disseminate misinformation.
If true, what he does flies completely in the face of what the board is supposed to be about.
It’s true that I have started threads when there was some bit of conventional wisdom that I believed was incorrect.
Although I appreciate LC’s compliment, I cannot take credit for this particular thread. It never occurred to me that the use of a routine debating term could be the source of Pit thread.
Well, if it pisses off the people who disagree with the premise enough to get them to open the thread, and propose arguments intended to show the invalidity of my resolution, it seems to me it’s working just fine. Of course it never bothered me much if people thought I was an arrogant twit, unless they could convince me they were right with a reasoned and rational argument.
However, I probably won’t use it.
Tris
“In my opinion, there’s nothing in this world,
Beats a '52 Vincent, and a red headed girl.” ~ Richard Thompson ~
While I agree that a consensus is at present lacking among the participants in this thread, I do not agree that there is no generally accepted meaning in debate. And since the purpose of Great Debates is to engage in debate, the worst criticism that can be fairly levelled against ‘Resolved:’ is redundancy.
I’m not sure I draw such an obvious distinction between “casual debate,” “Debate 101 for Sophomores,” and “official form[s] and resolution[s].” While it’s true that no debate here is subject to formal judging, formal publication, or has any prospective legislative effect, the language of the science of rhetoric can apply in like manner to any debate, casual or otherwise.
You seem riveted on the idea that the use of the word conveys the meaning that the proposed position is obvious. Yet many thread titles in GD deliberately are framed with a provocative conclusion, even though they may lack the word “Resolved.” The follwoign are recent titles from GD (not posted by december, I might add) in which the title suggests a forgone conclusion.
Christianity is Illogical
Paedophilia = Genetic
Religious and Christian are not synonymous
Palastinian bombers have NO excuse. Prove me wrong!
Softening the war on drugs will have a a terrible impact on society
Sharon doesn’t really want the violence to end
In addition, many titles, while framed as a question, assume facts not yet universally accepted:
Why are Jews so hated?
Why does GB house such a great percentage of atheists/agnostics?
Why are women repressed?
It is a practice far from condemned, in other words, to frame an OP title that asserts, as proven, the subject of the debate.
Several posters, myself included, have said that they don’t see the use of ‘Resolved’ as arrogant in the present circumstances. Perhaps your blanket statement could stand a little revising?
Given the points raised above, I’m afraid I cannot accept your conclusion. In debate, and especially in GD, where it is not uncommon to begin threads with conclusions, using ‘Resolved’ is neither arrogant, pretentious, or misplaced.
I never said “no longer in dispute” was the ONLY definition. I said it HAS that definition, and never said nor implied it has no others. I’m not arguing that it DOESN’T have the opposite meaning as well, I’m only arguing that the majority of people do not know the opposite meaning and will see it as arrogance.
And I think this thread has clearly demonstrated that the opposite meaning is FAR from obvious from the context, and several people have taken it to be display of arrogance of position, and not “to be resolved”.
You can argue this point until the SDMB crashes from reaching its maximum page length per thread, but it won’t change the fact that if you use “resolved” to mean “to be resolved” the majority will misunderstand you and see you as an arrogant ass.
But to say that “resolved” introducing a debate topic means anything but “this is a debate topic” runs against all tradition and logic. UNLESS the person using “resolved” is unaware of its use as the traditional, ubiquitous, introduction to formal debate topics.
My idea of a good debate topic: “Attack Iraq?” It is simple, clear, no “resolved,” draws no conclusions. But, to me, “Resolved: Attack Iraq?” would mean EXACTLY same thing. It is redundant, so I never use it. In formal debate the “resolved” makes it clear that the subsequent words are a debate topic. Since we here at the SDMB have a subject line, it is always unnecessary, but hardly worthy of strong condemnation. UNLESS, again, the poster is unaware of the meaninglessness of the word in front of a debate topic and is actually claiming that there is no debate. Of course, if there is no debate, why post?
I don’t think anyone can argue that adding “Resolved:” to a Debate thread title adds any meaning, and I would hope even the stringent supporters of “Resolved:” in this thread can see that it’s at least possible it will misunderstood.
So why use it at all, if it cannot add any meaning to the title?
Bricker, I concede all points save that the ambiguity and the similarity to ‘niggard’. ‘Resolved’ is open to interpretation, no matter how much we as proponents of the different gradients in its definition would like it not to be - it is. That is however rather not the point here.
We all agree it’s redundant in GD. Some of us suspect others of using it as provocation. As Beagle touches upon there would be no real problem (except redundancy) if there wouldn’t be the sentiment that certain posters might not intend debate, but are in fact baiting and grandstanding. Bring on the same OP in 573 varieties, have it meet serious and weighed opposition each time and then in the 574[sup]th[/sup] iteration add ‘Resolved:’ to the title. What would you say is up with that?
In my book it’s called provocation…
London_Calling proposed an answer on the previous page…
I fear that it is correct. december even sort of conceded it in his post right after L_C.
The point as regards redundancy is a good one, and I’ve already conceded that it’s certainly redundant. I merely object to the characterization of it as arrogant or ignorant; the ignorance lies with those who misperceive its meaning. If your objection is that it’s superfluous, I completely agree.