I mean, that’s a nice opinion and all, but yeah. Technically yes, those were debates. That one of the debaters was poorly prepared is another thing.
In a professional car race, if one of the drivers decides to hit reverse se whole time, is it fair to tell the one that plays by the rules “oh no, you don’t deserve the winner title because that wasn’t even a race”?
If you had a coworker who got a new dog. They were excited and told everyone in the office about him.
Couple months later this coworker throws a party. When you get to their house, they excitedly show you the new dog, but when what you see is clearly a cat.
Which are you more likely to think? “What an interesting looking dog.” or “Sir, that is a cat.”
He said it was a dog, and everyone attending was expecting to see a dog. It wasn’t a dog.
How about this scenario:
You have a disagreement with your neighbor about the property line. You mutually agree to settle it with a debate.
Your neighbor spends the entire time talking over you, sidestepping virtually every point you make, blatantly lying, personally insulting you and airing grievances.
You participate in good faith and the moderator decides that the property line should follow your plans.
Did you and your neighbor engage in a debate?
Here is an opinion: Donald Trump is neither classically or emotionally intelligent enough to engage in an actual, by definition, debate.
Your first analogy is flawed. If we compare it to the boxing example, it’s as if the two contenders played poker in the middle of the ring. Then the audience would be like “sir, this is a poker tournament.” So, no. Not the same.
The second one is still a debate. The neighbor is deranged, but there is a procedure, the neighbor didn’t follow the usual rules, and it didn’t help him at all.
If I were to define it off the top of my head, I’d say it means a mutually respectful argument.
That being said, your comment rang a bell:
A couple weeks ago I stumbled across descriptive and prescriptive linguistics. I’d mostly forgotten about it, but it’s super relevant here.
The basic idea according to descriptivists is that laguage is living and a words meaning can change based on how it’s being used by native speakers as a whole. Meanwhile prescriptivists insist on rules and grammar.
Or in other words; We’re both right.
I’m using the word debate as it’s typically used to describe a mutually respectful discussion of differing opinions, wheras you’re coming from a more by the books, black and white stance.
I found this video on Youtube that ultimately posits descriptivism works better for speech, perscriptivism works better for writing. I agree, and Social media is a little bit of both.
I mean, that’s a nice opinion and all, but yeah. Technically yes, those were debates. That one of the debaters was poorly prepared is another thing.
In a professional car race, if one of the drivers decides to hit reverse se whole time, is it fair to tell the one that plays by the rules “oh no, you don’t deserve the winner title because that wasn’t even a race”?
If there were only two cars would it have been a race?
It was called a race, people expected to see a race, but no race took place.
It was not a race.
Yes. It would have been called a race.
Let’s give you a better example, then. A boxing match.
One of the boxers just runs around trying to touch the other contender’s butt.
He gets disqualified.
The other boxer wins the match.
What the public (including you) thinks of it is irrelevant. The judges were there and ruled who won the match per the scenario presented.
Let me try it this way…
If you had a coworker who got a new dog. They were excited and told everyone in the office about him.
Couple months later this coworker throws a party. When you get to their house, they excitedly show you the new dog, but when what you see is clearly a cat.
Which are you more likely to think? “What an interesting looking dog.” or “Sir, that is a cat.”
He said it was a dog, and everyone attending was expecting to see a dog. It wasn’t a dog.
How about this scenario:
You have a disagreement with your neighbor about the property line. You mutually agree to settle it with a debate.
Your neighbor spends the entire time talking over you, sidestepping virtually every point you make, blatantly lying, personally insulting you and airing grievances.
You participate in good faith and the moderator decides that the property line should follow your plans.
Did you and your neighbor engage in a debate?
Here is an opinion: Donald Trump is neither classically or emotionally intelligent enough to engage in an actual, by definition, debate.
Your first analogy is flawed. If we compare it to the boxing example, it’s as if the two contenders played poker in the middle of the ring. Then the audience would be like “sir, this is a poker tournament.” So, no. Not the same.
The second one is still a debate. The neighbor is deranged, but there is a procedure, the neighbor didn’t follow the usual rules, and it didn’t help him at all.
Right. But no boxing took place.
Well, like I said, that’s your opinion. A bit dense in my own opinion, but if it’s yours, it’s yours.
What does the word debate mean to you?
Edit for clarity: In the context of a formal, moderated event.
Debate means to me what it means to you. Whatever the dictionary says.
Informally I guess it’s an event in which two or more parties have a side in an argument, and they intend to prove that their side is the right one.
If I were to define it off the top of my head, I’d say it means a mutually respectful argument.
That being said, your comment rang a bell: A couple weeks ago I stumbled across descriptive and prescriptive linguistics. I’d mostly forgotten about it, but it’s super relevant here.
The basic idea according to descriptivists is that laguage is living and a words meaning can change based on how it’s being used by native speakers as a whole. Meanwhile prescriptivists insist on rules and grammar.
Or in other words; We’re both right.
I’m using the word debate as it’s typically used to describe a mutually respectful discussion of differing opinions, wheras you’re coming from a more by the books, black and white stance.
I found this video on Youtube that ultimately posits descriptivism works better for speech, perscriptivism works better for writing. I agree, and Social media is a little bit of both.
It’s an interesting watch at around 7 minutes long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih0UqZ7O7Cg
Merriam-Webster has a decent write up on it too: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/descriptive-vs-prescriptive-defining-lexicography
It does come off a bit pointed, imo, but I found that most sources unfortunately do.
Cool! We’re both right, then.
Have a nice Friday!