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

Agreeing with burdens. I am going to use a single example to show why some understanding of the topic is going to be required in each hypothetical my opponent has put forth. My example will be "dogs". The debates will all be focused on debating about "dogs". So before I go on to evaluate each hypothetical I will first show many different ways a person could understand "dogs". a. A person could understand that "dogs" are animals. b. A person could understand that "dogs" is also a word. c. A person could understand that "dogs" is made up of 4 letters. d. A person could understand that "dogs" is of the English language. e. A person could understand that "dogs" sounds like dawgs. f. A person could understand that hearing the sound -dawgs- commonly refers to the word "dogs" which typically refers to animals of the canine type. There are more but I will leave it at this for now. My point is simple, there are many many ways to understand what "dogs" are. Now let us examine my opponents points. H4: Logical fallacies. My opponent is attempting to prove that if someone attempts to prove a logical fallacy in the debate that it is not part of the debate. So here is how the debate would go. ========== Pro: Dogs like dog food. Dogs are good. Con: This is a slippery slope fallacy. Simply because dogs like dog food does not mean they are good. ========== Thus it is readily apparent in this example that the slippery slope fallacy is now part of what is being debated. Furthermore it is apparent that con is going to need to understand at the very least the pronunciation of the words which he is debating with. He is also going to have to understand the meaning of a great deal of those words regardless of whether he understands the meaning usually associated with the word "dogs". In conclusion a fallacy will become part of a debate when it is brought into the debate, thus it is essential that the debater understands it in some way to initiate it. Note: My opponent says razzmatazz is not being debated in this round. This is not true, we are currently debating whether razzmatazz is being debated in this round. My opponent is using this mild example to attempt to show that each separate point in a debate is not what is being debated, however in doing so he is proving that each separate point is indeed being debated. Thus we are indeed debating whether razzmatazz is actually being debated right now. =) H5: My opponent is attempting that debating against a lazy debater and winning constitutes debating well. I have a couple main points. A. I agreed with the definition of holding one's ground against a debater who does understand under the pretense that winning on forfeited rounds or against crappy debaters would not actually constitute debating well. B. My opponent is taking that understanding debater and essentially making him equal to a debater who doesn't understand or a debater that forfeits his or her rounds. Thus it can be seen that I really do not agree with this skew of my opponents definition. C. Finally my opponent himself has stated that debating well consists of a satisfying presentation or another high standard. Thus in this case neither debater would be doing such a thing and neither would be debating well. However my opponent has still let my other argument stand thus I will be attacking him with it also. The debaters, who are not understanding are still going to debate about something in round. Which means that whatever they choose to debate about will require an understanding of those words, those sounds, and those ideas whether they debate well or not. ========= Pro: Dogs are typically horrible beasts. I have think they could probably shoot laser beams. Con: Dogs aren't horrible beasts! They make little eggs and give them to starving children! ========= Obviously Pro isn't using his understanding of what dogs are and con has no idea to begin with but that doesn't change the fact that they both understand how "dogs" is spelled and pronounced, thus a limited understanding is still required. Also as they are arguing that dogs are horrible or not they must both understand what horrible is. I have no regrets this is the only path. H6: Through agreeing that under his definition a computer could debate my opponent has effectively conceded his point. It is readily apparent that a computer is incapable of debating as a computer is inanimate. Thereby we can see that my opponents definition is rather flawed. If we are to accept my opponents definition then we must also except the fact that both people are debating jointly as it would not be possible for the second debater to be "debating alone". Furthermore, yes, all debaters are still going to require an understanding of what they are debating in the sense that they will have to understand how to pronounce, spell, type or sign the words. My opponent goes off of this line of thought to attempt to prove that the debaters are not debating about the pronunciation, spelling, typing, or signing of those words. This idea is fallacious at best, let's examine the situation. ========== Pro(1): Say this to the Con. Pro(2): (I don't know what dogs is..... but okay -turns to con-) Dogs are man's best friend! Con(1): I negate! A cat is far superior! ========== So while it is true they are not debating about the pronunciation, spelling, typing, or signing they are still debating about the words. This is especially true in the case of Pro(2), considering that he does not know what dogs are, he is debating (with the help of Pro(1)) the word dogs. Thus as he is debating a word, he falls under our current resolution when he understands aspects of that word, like pronunciation. Furthermore it should be noted that words are legitimate attributes of any idea. Without words or language it would be rather difficult to think. Thus humans created words in order to describe the things that they saw. Thus words, from our average human perspective, are an attribute of any idea. H7: All true. The person is still going to have to understand that abortion is a word though, and that abortion is spelled in a specific way. Furthermore this does not fall under my opponents resolution at all, he is attempting to say that debating is simply arguing heatedly, if someone is simply copying and pasting from a website then they are not arguing or doing anything heatedly. Here is an example of a debater with no understanding about the subject being debated. ========= Pro: DOGS ARE MAGNIFICENT, I TYPE REALLY BIG BECAUSE I'M COMPENSATING FOR SOMETHING! Con: (Goes to a computer and sits down....... Thinks a bit, realizes he does not understand anything about the debate topic. Stares blankly at the computer for a while trying to think of what he could type in to start understanding.... ) If only I understood those words that he used, if I did then I would understand just enough about this debate to get started...... -sigh- ========= ========= Conclusion ========= I agree that understanding the words of what you are debating is not a big thing to understand. In fact for the average human understanding the words is rather easy. However it is still a small ounce of understanding, and a small ounce of understanding is all that is needed to prove my opponent wrong when he states, "It is not necessary to understand thing to debate them well." Thus I must urge for a vote in favor of CON in order to CONdemn my opponents fallacious position. Thank you. My whole life was "Unlimited Blade Works."