"Wealthy" is a relative term, rather than an absolute one.

Thanks to Cody for his astute response. Con: "The only coherent definition is one that is consistent with logic." Hmm, I'm not so sure that definitions need to arise from a totally logical foundation in order to be coherent. Words are defined by how they are used and what they signify to people. If language arose within a strictly logical framework, we'd all be speaking some kind of robot Esperanto. Cody wants us to disregard any accepted definitions that he decides are illogical. It seems to me that his own definition strips the word "wealthy" of meaning and that there is no logical benefit to accepting it. I have no problems with Cody's clarification of the word "absolute". In fact I'd like to draw attention to the observation he made that "The truth or existence of [an absolute property] is not contingent on other entities or contexts". I think it's overwhelmingly obvious from the examples I gave in the previous round (not to mention straight up common sense) that wealth is entirely contingent on external factors, therefore not absolute according to Cody's clarification. Con: "Pro has defined "wealthy" in such a way so as to make a Con victory impossible" Any reputable dictionary will support the resolution, for the simple fact that it is a clear and correct statement about a linguistic term. Con: "For my own part, I define wealthy strictly, as "possessing wealth"" And it is a completely illogical interpretation because the term means more than this. Possessing health doesn't necessarily make you healthy, possessing filth doesn't necessarily make you filthy. If you decide that "cow" means pig, it won't stop other people thinking of cows when you say it. Under this definition, even those with absolutely zero possessions, as long as they were still able to work, would be considered wealthy. One's labour is an economic utility, but if that is all one has, one is surely not wealthy. I'm going to try not to spend too long on Cody's bizarre definition. It seems that he already acknowledges that there is no reason for anyone else to accept it, as he is now attempting to make his case for a definition of "wealthy" that does encompass quantity. _______ 1. a. Cody's points here are fundamentally flawed and worthy of a debate in their own right. Sidestepping the questionable validity of race labels in general, the assignation of the terms white and black is often entirely subjective and the descriptor can indeed change relative to other factors. A good example is my daughter. If you met her without knowing anything about her, you would probably assume she was white. She has a light olive skinned, kind of Mediterranean complexion and straight dark brown hair. However if you met her after meeting her mum, who has brown skin and afro hair, you almost certainly wouldn't describe her as white. Another would be a debate on this site: http://www.debate.org... Koopin describes himself as bi-racial and considers himself neither black nor white, his opponent here, who like Koopin has one black and one white parent, describes himself as black. It is often pointed out that Obama would be regarded as white (or certainly not black) in Brazil, Africa or other societies http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.reference.com... and a "black" man like Colin Powell http://media3.washingtonpost.com... clearly has darker skin than a "white" man like David Dickinson http://www.bbc.co.uk... Let's consider the abstracts of black and white for a moment, separate from any concept of race. They don't qualify as absolute because the point at which either becomes grey on an image like this is entirely arbitrary, http://www.dawnandevan.com... neither A or not A. Colours (or in this case representations of darkness and light) are entirely relative to perception. In this image http://en.wikipedia.org... the strip is one constant shade of grey and only appears to change relative to the background. Qualities who's existence depends upon perception can not be said to be absolute, per Cody's definition that the "truth or existence of it is not contingent on other entities or contexts". I would like Cody to explain how, when there is a smooth gradation of degree between total opposites (as with wealth and poverty, or with black and white) the quality can possibly be an absolute "it is or it isn't" quality. b. Cody dismisses the example of a true absolute (death) without explanation and offers another term that is entirely relative (solidity). The solidity of oak and steel is clearly relative to external factors. With fists, both are solid; with a box of matches or an axe, steel is still solid, oak not so much. c. Cody seems to concede that external factors such as markets can influence wealth, even to the extent where they could determine whether someone qualified as wealthy or not. I'd like him to explain how such an attribute can be described as absolute in the sense of "not contingent on other entities". 2. a. The logical coherency of a term depends on it's definition. That's how words work and the definitions clearly support my interpretation: "An individual who is considered wealthy, affluent, or rich is someone who has accumulated substantial wealth relative to others in their society or reference group". b. If your currency becomes so worthless that nobody will accept it, then the very possession of wealth would indeed cease to be an attribute and it's clearly more likely than this for a currency to merely become devalued enough for one's "adequate" status to be affected. Con: "a property being dependent on context does not make it relative." A property being dependent on context does indeed make it relative as per Con: "The truth or existence of it is not contingent on other entities or contexts". Absolutes (again, death) either exist or don't, independent of context. c. Absolutes aren't supposed to be affected by external factors in this way. If things can change so easily then surely there must be cases of people with exactly the amount of wealth they "need" who are neither wealthy or not wealthy, so how can it be absolute? d. see c. e. Under the definition of "more than adequate to one's needs", wealth is most certainly relative, as someone's "needs" are implicitly relative themselves. The middle class American will consider his needs in terms of his mortgage payments, his health premiums and his children's college education, the African orphan will consider his needs in terms of day to day survival. 3. a. Con: "The fact that I have proposed such a definition for "wealthy" is a result of the fact that my opponent's definition, taken without my own clarifications, is meaningless." The established definitions are not meaningless. On the contrary, they represent the meaning of the term. It s Cody's "logically" contrived definition that equates poverty with wealth that is meaningless. On the original thread, Cody claimed that short people were still tall, just "not very tall". If short can equal tall and poor can equal wealthy, how can the axioms of A=A and a or ~a hold up here? 4. I've spent way too long on the race example and used up all my characters. I'll address this other side issue in my final round. ______ With all due respect, I find Cody's pseudo-logical position to be profoundly unconvincing, such a binary way of looking at the world in strictly black and white terms ignores a lot of important detail. There is no grey area with absolutes and I maintain that the only absolute concept referred to so far to in this debate is death. Wealthy is a relative term. Thanks. Pro.