Debate is benefit

critical point from Contender --------------------------------------- ***However, I will not be a jerk who uses semantics to my advantage, so I will interepret your claim to be "Debate is beneficial". You have agreed with yourself there is a semantics error in this case ,in your subjective view of this debate "there a error in it semantics meaning ". therefore this is going to be the case that you have already accepted for. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- your 2nd round make no logic, ****I am not here to debate semantics. I have already said that. ----------------------------- let me remind u again of your position in this debate of "there a error in it semantics meaning" on round 1 you claim and agree this is a semantics debate in your view and have taken the contender side which you have to against that there is no semantics error in it , but than now you are not here to have debate on the semantics of what you stated, because instead of objecting , Contender fully agree there is semantics error in it . ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- critical point from Contender ******According to your definition of the term "elephant" and "grey", it is also obvious that they are not the same thing. -->Your definition of the term "elephant" is a large mammal. -->Your definitions of the terrms "grey" and "pink" are a type of color. --->An elephant is not a type of color because an elephant is a large mammal. ---->Therefore, "elephant" and "grey" are not the same thing. *However, it is acceptable to say "The elephant is grey" because the term "grey" IS AN ADJECTIVE. However, the term "benefit" IS A NOUN. Because it is a noun, you cannot use it in the same way that you use an adjective. *Let me repeat that: YOU CANNOT USE A NOUN LIKE AN ADJECTIVE, excluding certain cases such as when you are using metaphors, which would not be an acceptable title due to the confusion it can cause. Furthermore, you did not specify that you were using a metaphor, therefore, I was under the implication that I had the freedom to interpret your claims however I desire. -------------------------------------------- Contender let me remind you again that , this is a arguments in it semantics of logic, the meaning of meaning in statement which is either meaningful in the view of LOGIC,self subjective,objective. THIS is not a English class or a debate on if dictionary lesson, this is a arguments between the case of semantics logic , the meaning of meaning. which you claim there" a error of it semantics meaning" in this case , and have your position as a Contender , that is to again that there is no semantics error in this case. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *****I urge you to forget semantics and start the debate already! You have wasted 2 rounds already! If you, the instigator, will not instigate the debate, then I will. I will begin by providing a link to a debate on DDO. The debate's title is: Do You think I'm Hot. The contents of the debate is people criticizing and hating on each other. This is certainly not beneficial. http://www.debate.org...... -------------------------------------------- Contender again, get back to your topic first that you have already agreed to debate on. r u that fool to post such topic and trying to link with this topic? the above link that you provide is totally not linked for this debate case . its a question asked , how could a question be a debate when its not even a case ? AGAIN LET ME REMIND U, IF u are really that tiny.. lol Debate is on. " a error of it semantics meaning" in this case , and have your position as a Contender , that is to again there is no semantics error in this case. AGAIN let me say, on your round one You have agreed accpet with yourself there is a semantics error in this case ,in your subjective view of this debate "there a error in it semantics meaning ". therefore this is going to be the case that you have already accepted for. AGAIN let me say, you are in the Contender , that is to again there is no semantics error in this case. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********PRO HAS PLAGARISED WITHOUT PROVIDING THE SOURCE! Pro has copied and pasted a lot of what he said in the previous round from this forum about philosophy: http://forums.philosophyforums.com...... ------------------------------------------ how stupid can one be? semantics logic is about philosophy meaning of meaning arguments is deep roots between philosophy, the above is just a good explain, which could indicated both side of arguments. AGAIN let me say, you are in the Contender , your main objective is to point out there is no semantics error for this case above.