It is not necessary to understand things to debate them well.

First off, let me apologize for any horrendous typing errors that I make this round; I'm typing using a somewhat broken keyboard. My arrow keys are missing, and several of my keys are sometimes unresponsive, so I'm relying on red squigglies to inform me of my errors. My opponent claims I have come to a misunderstanding of epic proportions. I'll get to that in a sec, when I see it. For the burdens, my opponent agrees with the burdens I initially set up, with one stipulation: that the resolution refers to an 'average human.' Quite vague wording, so I will go further into defining what his apparent meaning was here. =============== Burdens =============== We have agreed that I must show one case or hypothetical scenario in which something can be debated well without the debater having an understanding of it. I believe my opponent's stipulation is meant to prevent me from applying rare or inhuman traits to this hypothetical debater, something I have not done yet anyway. My hypothetical debaters so far have been people with very plausible traits. I have not made any hypotheticals that are highly improbable, and will not do so. If I have interpreted his words correctly, then I accept the terms. If not, then I do not. As PRO, I simply have to show that it is possible to debate something well without understanding it. I do not have to show that it's possible for an alligator to do it, for a Mudkip, for a severe retard, or for the 'average human.' In reference to the thousand blades, I apologize for being so skeptical at first. However, let me point out that my opponent has not yet provided evidence of the things he claims to have done [such as creating a thousand blades, quite a feat]. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but my opponent has instead provided an extraordinary lack thereof. Luckily he claims that he will show us at a later point that he has indeed done these things. ================================== "J00 dropped my point" - Yraelz ================================== Yes, I did, because I conceded the point it was there to make. Let us examine. Me: Arguing semantics is a way to win a debate without understanding the actual topic Yraelz: But then, the semantics are what's being debated, and the debater needs to understand the semantics to debate them. Me: *drops the point, since it is indeed the semantics being debated here, and continuing this point would require circular logic* In ANY other context, when the words of the resolution are not what's being argued, Yraelz's point here is irrelevant. Yes, a debater does have to understand the words used in a resolution. However, the wording of our own resolution limits the scope of the 'things' to be understood to the 'them' that is being debated. Since the words are not debated in most debates, it matters not to our debate whether the debaters understand the words or not. This might be a valid point if the resolution read: "It is not necessary to understand things to debate other things well" Since to debate anything well, you have to understand some certain things. Such as how to use the language you're debating in. such as how to use your voice, or how to type, or how to use sign language [depending on the medium of debate]. But I am arguing that you do NOT have to understand the actual topics you debate. You might have to understand the words therein, or the letters in the words, or the shapes that make the letters, but you don't have to understand the actual things you're debating to debate them well. DEFENDING H4: 'logical fallacies' The logical fallacies would become 'part of the debate,' but they are not necessarily being debated. You must argue ABOUT something to be debating it, arguing USING something is not debating it. For example, I used the word Razzmatazz in this sentence. However, I am not debating razzmatazz, even though it is part of this argument. 'Threads of logical reasoning' As long as the threads of logical reasoning aren't being argued about, they are not being debated, and therefore whether they are understood or not is irrelevant. Simply being included in or used in a debate does not mean something is being debated. See razzmatazz above. I'm not arguing _about_ razzmatazz, but I just argued using it. See D2 at the beginning of PRO R2. And as long as the words are not being argued about, whether or not they're understood is irrelevant to the discussion we're having. DEFENDING H5: My opponent claims that this does not amount to either party debating well. However, one of the membrs of the debate did in fact understand the topic. My opponent and I have already agreed that debating something well is having the ability to hold one's ground against a debater who does understand. Since the debater in H5 does understand [but chooses not to use his understanding], holding one's ground against him in a debate does in fact constitute debating something well. He fits perfectly into the definition of debating something well my opponent and I both agreed on. DEFENDING H6: My opponent argues against my definition of argue, though he does not provide his own definition. He does not really back up his objections to my definition, and provides no alternatives, so I urge you to continue using my definition of argue. In response to "In this scenario all the person is doing is serving as a medium through which the other person is debating." : No, that isn't all the person is doing. At least based on the definitions of debate and argue presented in this debate, this person is also debating whatever these arguments were about. Also, I'm sure everyone already knows this, but if a dictionary says "exchange diverging or opposite views heatedly." it does not allow you to place whatever definition of heatedly you want in its place. You must use the context-specific definition. Just like breaking a promise isn't shattering it into small pieces, heatedly exchanging diverging views does not mean doing so in an oven. to clear up any misconceptions of what heatedly means, here. http://www.askoxford.com... Look at the verb definition number 3. Obviously, that is the sense in which 'heatedly' is meant, since it even specifically states in an example that it's what's referred to when someone speaks of a 'heated' argument. And yes, the person doing the debating will have to understand how to pronounce, spell, type, or sign the words he's using, but once again, as long as he's not arguing about how to pronounce, etc. the words, whether or not he understands it is completely irrelevant. My opponent says I probably want him to win, but this is simply untrue, along with most of my opponent's claims in this debate. DEFENDING H7: As long as reading comprehension is not being debated, it matters not if the debater has an understanding of it. And to research for something, one must only understand the words used in the resolution, one does not need to understand the actual topic of research. For example, going CON for abortion. One must only Google "Arguments against abortion," copy, and paste. No understanding of the issue at hand needs to take place. In fact, the debater in this case doesn't even need to know what abortion is. ============== Yraelz's Analysis ============== I showed why I conceded Yraelz's point in its specific context [he only used it in a specific, relevant context in R1] and I showed how it was invalid to apply it to the whole debate, as my opponent did last round[it was an irrelevant point when semantics was not being debated]. ============== fin.