For most men this is the face of God

Art Debate: Pro: "(T)his is an arts debate and not philosophy or logic and as such arts include literature we can assume that my claim has something to do with literature(.) (A)nd it does(.)" 1: I'm uncertain why this debate is "an arts debate". Pro's opening statement, "I argue that for most men this is the Face of God" never uses the words "art", "debate", "philosophy", "logic", or "literature", making it impossible for me to know that this debate was about art. It is unfair for Pro to require me to know what Pro wanted with Pro never stating it. 2: Even if Pro actually had stated that this debate was an art debate, what could it possibly be about? When discussing art (like in all the movie/video game/drawing debates on DDO), one usually discusses (a) how good/bad the art is or (b) whether it *is* art. Neither is true here. As such, it is implausible that this is an art debate, because it has neither of the characteristics of an art debate. 3: Even art debates must obey the rules of logic. Pro makes an assertion; Pro must back it up. Hence, Pro must back up the literal resolution, regardless of its artfulness or lack thereof. --- Rhetorical Statement: Pro: "(M)y claim is rhetorical - a literary devise(.) (sic) .... (Y)ou treating (sic) this debate as logic or philosophy(.) You would to this rhetorical statement(.)" Pro claims that Pro's claim is rhetorical, and thus not subject to logic. While this is, of course, false (nothing is immune to logic), it also isn't rhetorical. What is a rhetorical statement? As WiseGEEK.com states (1), "A rhetorical statement is ... an assertion that uses devices ... often found in rhetoric to become more ... persuasive." If Pro's claim is rhetorical, it must (a) use rhetorical devices (b) to become more persuasive. (a) is discussed below. Seeing as Pro's opening statement is pretty clearly not persuasive (it is a statement of purported fact), it fails (b). There's a second category of "rhetorical statements". As WiseGEEK.com states (1), "A rhetorical statement can also refer to a ... question ... not meant to elicit a proper response(.)" Does Pro's statement fit this description? No, because it is not a question. Hence, Pro's statement is not rhetorical. --- Hyperbole: Pro: " 'I am so hungry I could eat a horse(,)' would just say here you are(,) eat this horse then and prove your claim - where in fact there is nothing prove(.) (sic)" I don't understand what Con is attempting to state here. But it's clearly a reference to hyperbole. What is hyperbole? As Google, Inc., states (2), "exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally." Is this statement exaggerated? Only if "the Face of God" means something different than the obvious (which Con has declined to tell us), and only if its real meaning is less exaggerated than "the Face of God". Is this statement not meant to be taken literally? There's no indication that this statement meant anything other than the words on the page. --- Sarcasm: Pro: "(M)y claim is in fact sarcasm - again another literary device - it does not have to be proved at all(.)" First off, why wouldn't a sarcastic statement (or at least its *true* intent need to be proven? Second, this isn't sarcasm. What is sarcasm? As Google, Inc, states (3), "the use of irony to ... convey contempt" Where is the irony? The contempt? Third, if this WAS sarcasm, how could I have possibly known? It is unfair of Pro to require me to know what his true intent was without him indicating it. --- Summary: Con’s claim (the resolution) is a factual assertion, nothing more or less. And even if it wasn’t, it’s unfair to expect me to know that when Pro didn’t state so. --- References: (1) wisegeek.com/what-is-a-rhetorical-statement.html (2) google.com/search?q=hyperbole (3) google.com/search?q=sarcasm