Critical Literature existed before 'A Critique of Pure Reason'

It was clear that he had not studying the material related to the discussion. So after much frustration he challenges The Fool to this debate as a spiteful, attempt to get a semantic win rather than an honest debate in relation to our discussion. It is easy to see just by the fact that it makes no sense, to even having such a trivial debate in the first place. If I noticed he was doing this and especially four of it I wouldn’t have accepted it at all. I am grateful for the voters who actually stayed and read it all. Is it over yet? Hawkings: ‘My opponent seems to be focused on this issue, so let's resolve it using what has been said, as opposed to misrepresenting others. ’ The Fool: Did I do it or not, its plainly open for all to see. The word “seems” is and intentional attempt to distort and not only that I have been pushing for clarity not ambiguity.2X Red Herring fallacy. One of the ways to tell the integrity of my debates is that I “QUOTE” exactly that I am refuting. So is it clear what I am referring to and it avoids the opponent’s ability to justly charge you with Strawman fallacies. I avoid words like perhaps, appealingly or seems, maybe (the opponent). The idea is that if something is true of an opponent just quote it, rather than only persuading the audience with such words. Just be open and clear. Are you serious? Hawking’s: ‘My opponent did not offer an alternative definition or an attempt to resolve any problems. ’ The Fool: ! !! !! !! ?? ?? ?! Note the direct admission, and later he also says that it wasn’t circular or opaque. Also note the Contradiction. “The Fool: I disagree with the definition proposed as it is too broad to add, general criticism or evaluation of literature as such are intuitive by reading literature alone” “Critical literature is synonymous with literary criticism. AKA Critical theory. I accept this definition. ” Remember Hawking’s has tried to cut out the most important part of section of my quote and definition already and made a failed Strawman attempt with it. From earlier, before Hawking last Round definition: “critical" theory derives from Kant's (18th-century) and Marx's (19th Century) use of the term "critique", as in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. ”critique" means examining and establishing the limits of the validity of a faculty, type,… blah blah blah. Hawkings: ”{The Fool} did not make clear his own disagreement in R1, as per the rules of debate & precedence, then decides to continue with a semantic argument. ” The Fool: remember Hawking is deliberately attempting a semantic win, I have mentioned it over and over and he doesn’t deny it one bit. And then he is accusing The Fool of it. .! !! ?? ?? ?? ? Red Herring fallacy. Then he says shamlessly: Stephen Hawkings:, my opponent states that he wants to avoid a semantics game through the Over-Broad definition fallacy. The Fool: What are you talking about through the Over-broad fallacy! ! Red herring fallacy Awww That is sad! Why? Pro is suggesting that the definition I mentioned is narrow, mind you he is just learning these concepts as we speak, as I think he was Shock again by my mention of the over-broad fallacy. Defining is an art, and the purpose of definition in debate is having it in way that makes it possible for rational inquiry. That is to make it so that it’s worth debating about. This is inherent in The Principle of Charity, a philosophers ethic that I have sent Hawking on at least three occasions, before the debate but he continues to feel okay with this deceptive dialectic discussion and debate. This part of the principle is to take word to mean the most likely sense that the speaker is intending. The Hawk intentionally violated that rule went for sneaky victory but he got FOOLED! Because I like The Fool! My opponent is defining the word literary criticism to refer to only Neo-Marxist theories. The Fool: I have already demonstrated how Neo-Marxist, is not related at all. WTF is he talking about! ? Remember when I said desperation. This I false. Strawman Fallacy So what, Squirrels like Nuts The Fool is a Fool but a Nut is Nut, for a fool is foolish but a nut is just plain ridiculous. Hawkings: “My opponent also states that Squirrelling is a specifically obscure rule. “ The Fool: Negative, I said it was an obscure source and that you should have defined the rule in the first round because it is not that common enough to us at DDO. Strawman Fallacy Hawking: “However, he seems to concede that he has broken this rule,” The Fool: Firstly I haven’t, whether or not it is seemingly. Strawman Fallacy Ridiculous: Hawkings: “It's definition {squirrel} is clear and accessible, and the rule was unchallenged, expressing acceptance. “ The Fool: “That was specifically challenged you just said it yourself. !! !! !? ?? ?? ?? ?? ? It’s rare that I would say that an opponent is flat out lying, but there is no way for him to hide it,its plainly viable to all. (I don’t even know what to call this? ) FABLE Fallacy. Hhmm sound Good? ;) Nuts have “Mushmind” Hawkings: Ignoring the general discussion on the endless circle of definitions: The Fool: why would we do that? lol. It was a fatal argument not a discussion. Red Herring fallacy Hawking: I contend that my definition is not overly broad, but rather fits the definition: The Fool: Remember not only was he is deliberate attempting a cheat win. He is attempting to formulize the definition IN THE LAST ROUND! So this is it is a huge matter of justice here. Special Pleading Stephen Hawkings: To use my opponent's example, I would have defined fenacal chackel as "synonymous to chackel fenacal, that is, jumping up and down repeatedly", giving a very clear definition. The Fool: I love that game. XD here Steve is hiding, the fact that the word in all Three sections of his definition, which is also not related to our discussion. Red Herring fallacy This is fit for the Birds Hawking is complaining that his case is being misrepresented The Fool: if this is true then he should quote and show a strawman fallacy, But I clearly stated what I meant and none of it says please drop rounds. "I really don't want to go through four rounds of this"=/= Please drop rounds. Strawman fallacy I then stated literary criticism is defined as "the criticism and evaluation of literature". More attempts to define Critical Theory as the debate The empty-nesst The Fool: One important Sophism is when an opponent tries to use language to give an impression that they have demonstrated lots when they have not shown very little at all: The Hawk: To summarise(First mention) The Hawk: Just as a final note(Again) The Hawk: In short (again), my opponent has made multiple unjustified claims, or claims that are purely wrong(again), as well as all(again) of the other faults in the argumentation. The Fool: Yeah that’s right no impure wrongs here. <(:D) The Hawk: In short,(again) my opponent has been unable to make a strong refutation(again) of my claims, and I urge a vote PRO. The Fool: You have been URGED! …………………………. .again! !. <(XD) Super Mega Red Herrring! It’s a Nut-shell-ter This debate was been made more mess then its needs to be: In a nutshell: The Fool and The Hawk were halving a discussion on post-modernism which is at best 150 old only. The Hawk got shocked and tried to snivel the Fool into a semantic win for spiteful payback. Obviously we it would be “nutty” to such trivials as evaluating literature existing. Just reading literature is evaluating literature . Pro un-expectantly got charged with definition fallacies. (he had never heard of it before)Aka He Got SHOCKED! ] The Fool demonstrated his case! The rest has been The Fool, blocking Hawking’s desperate attempts to slither around it. I am sure Stephens Hawking’s is a very smart guy, but at this time and on this debate: The Hawk got shocked! !! AGAIN! ! VOTE FOOL!