Critical Literature existed before 'A Critique of Pure Reason'

Kick off! Before I begin this round, let’s just think for a moment about what Pro argument amounts too: Pro; ’Since, I did not define my own definition clearly Con can’t win this debate.” WTF!!??, does he take us for fools? ;) Imagine if we take such arguments seriously, that means every time the instigator defines a subject they can later turn around and say he meant his definition ambiguously therefore the Challenger can’t win. This makes it impossible for the challenger to ever win at all. Just think about how unreasonable this suggestion is. That is the whole function of the Over-broad definition fallacy. It is there to prevent such scandal. Pro has made a fatal error. The rest of these rounds waste my time, your time, and Pro’s own time. Nobody wants to neither read nor write four rounds of semantics. There is no virtue in such debates and they prove nothing about reality in the end. It should be common ethics to assume that nobody wants to play semantic games. We shouldn’t have to write that down ‘no semantic games’ every time. People who lower the DDO experience with such games need to be held responsible. Your very private message Pro claims that the Fool said that we should drop a round in a private message. The Fool said no such things. He said, “I really don’t want to go through four rounds or this.” As in, as if you are going to drag us all the way out for four rounds just to save a little face. The rest was his and only his idea. Strawman fallacy The discussion Pro stated in acceptance round that, “This debate is based on a discussion spawned between myself and The Fool on the Hill.” This discussion is clearly observable in the philosophy Forum, which was sparked from a disagreement of post-modernism. My claim was as about the role critical theory plays in post-modernism. In which there is no ambiguity in the sense I was referring to. Thus pro can’t in the second round declare it as more ambiguous then what was meant originally, it was my own reference, not his. And a speaker could never be wrong their own meaning. Even if we use the improper language the meaning intended is always the meaning of the speaker. The other is the interpreter, and they may or may not interpret the meaning of the speaker correctly. More definition Problems Even if we take semantic games seriously, His definition is still a fallacy why? Because it shares the same name with each of its definitions, this makes it a circular definition. This is another definition fallacy, for (critical literature) as (literary criticism) tells us nothing of about what critical literature is. E.g. if a child ask you ‘what is critical literature’ and you give pro’s definition “literary criticism“ The child would be baffled for you have not indicated at all what they heck it means. Another example: Let’s say The Fool playing a game that you never heard of and he says it’s called “fenacal chackel’ and you ask him what that means and he responds well its ‘chackel fenacal’ we would all agree that he is being quite Foolish here. Right? But this is the exact nature of Pro Definition. It a nonsense definition, as it’s merely restates the words in a difference order. “It is a mark of prudence never to place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once.” Rene Descartes Is pro being honest with us? For pros say that, I said "I accept this definition", explicitly remarking "Critical literature is synonymous with literary criticism". But I really said: ‘Critical literature is synonymous with literary criticism. Aka Critical theory. I accept this definition.’ Pro committed a Strawman Fallacy. Notice how Pro actually cut out the most important part or my agreement and then shamelessly tried to sell it back to us. ‘Aka Critical Theory!!’ this is what takes the definition out of circularity. For critical theory is the particular conceptualization at hand. Even though it has critical in the definition it has been specifically accounted for by referring to that of the Critique of Pure Reason. “critique" means examining and establishing the limits of the validity of a faculty, type, or body of knowledge, especially through accounting for the limitations imposed by the fundamental, irreducible concepts in use in that knowledge system.” As Descartes implies it is not just important to see how many argument people get right but also how many fallacious attempts were made. If somebody is proud of their argument such tactics are not needed, because the logical proof is good enough. Bad sources are worst then No sources One of the problems I notice is DDO is the amount of bad sources. Bad sources with do not support the argument in the end are Red Herrings. They give and impression to the reader that the speaker is being supported when they in fact they misinform the audience. Pro has many sources such about the use of the term critical literature in the over- broad sense. But what he doesn’t realise is that most of his sources are base from other languages, that is the term has been used to back label a translation from another language which may not have the same meaning, now. What is worse most of them don’t go to anywhere. There is about three that work. And if you click the necessary component you will see that most of the dates are much more recent then he has written. That is Pro has actually put fake dates beside the links: Please take a moment to examine them yourself: Squirrels The Fool: I have no doubt that Pro is talking about something when he refers to squirrels, I have no idea what, but I think that would have been important to define in the first round. His source is some obscure debate society in Australia. Maybe they have a lot of squirrels there? Red Herring fallacy Anything is Possible with the Fool The Fool: Remember Pro is trying his best to squiggle a semantic win. He has made it clear that this is his goal. He is not even denying it and he then makes this claim: Pro claims: My opponent is attempting to have "distort...the definition [of the word 'critical literature'] The Fool: yeah that right, I have mentioned it clearly in my first round. Strawman fallacy. Secondly pro has two definition fallacies in one definition already, if what Pro is saying is true it would violate the purpose of our previous discussion. Remember Pro is saying that while is whole purpose is too trick me into semantics win in the first place. Lol. Red Herring fallacy When we get desperate! Pro: ‘This shows that this is just one form of critical theory, and, if critical theory is to remain synonymous with literary criticism, then just a small part of literary criticism. The Fool: Pro is attempting to get rid of critical theory as part of the definition(sorry my distortion of my own claim) but now he is trying to use it. Lol Contradiction fallacy Pro: if critical theory is to remain synonymous with literary criticism, then just a small part of literary criticism. The Fool: it doesn’t say that is not related to the critical theory. Bold assertion fallacy. Secondly it’s an appeal to ambiguity fallacy. Pro: Finally, although this is not relevant to any argument. Red Herring fallacy. Pro: One cannot use "back labelling", yet uses a "neo-marxist examination Vs. The Fool: "critical" theory derives from Kant's (18th-century) and Marx's (19th Century) use of the term "critique", This is a clear and obvious Strawman fallacy Well I am running out of refuting space, the Fool will be back again to finish this off. I expect this to be a desperation round, but judge for yourself. Vote Fool!!