CreateDebate


Debate Info

10
8
No and ? No,No, and No.
Debate Score:18
Arguments:15
Total Votes:18
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No and ? (9)
 
 No,No, and No. (6)

Debate Creator

lawnman(1106) pic



Dogs lick testicles

Does this mean that your nuttless, canine wonder named “Brutus” licks his balls?

Does that mean the statement is false because Brutus has no balls to lick?

What if your dog is female, is it then therefore false?

(I have noticed an absence of sound inference from the distribution of quantity of some of the subjects in some of the debates at CD. Perhaps this debate can help evidence the importance of quantity in discourse.)

No and ?

Side Score: 10
VS.

No,No, and No.

Side Score: 8
2 points

I'm not really good at these sorts of things, so I will ask you to tell me if I'm way off here.

Is it a statement that all dogs lick testicles or does it refer only to the description given?

I find myself thinking about this as All Dogs Lick Testicles, even if a nuttless dog has no testicles to lick is he the exception rather then the rule?

Can it be thought that if he licks another dogs testicles that he is still licking testicles? the same could be asked of the female dog. Not owning a dog I am not aware if female dogs lick their genitals.

If a dog Licks his scar where his testicles were, he is probably adhering to a natural instinct to do so as all dogs with testicles do it and a dog being an instinctual creature will do it with out reason. He therefore could be said to be licking his testicles even in their absence as he might not be aware of the fact.

I may be missing the point here, but I would appreciate it if someone corrected me on this.

Side: No and ?
1 point

I find myself thinking about this as All Dogs Lick Testicles,

I think most of us do, at least initially. And after a few moments of thought we reason that the statement can only mean ‘some’ dogs lick testicles.

Now read this:

1) Blacks are rapists.

2) Conservatives are morons.

3) Liberals are intelligent.

4) Whites are oppressors.

At a KKK rally, example (1) will provoke hatred toward all blacks.

At a Liberal rally, example (2) will provoke a standing ovation.

At a Conservative rally, example (3) will provoke a standing ovation.

At a Black heritage rally, example (4) will provoke hatred toward all whites.

The provocations listed in those examples are responses of people who react as though the propositions are universal, i.e., all blacks, conservatives, liberals, and whites.

Answer the following questions.

Would the people listed in the examples respond the same if the statements read: A few Blacks…; A few Conservatives…; A few Liberals…; A few Whites…?

Is this a subtle means to appeal to emotion?

Politicians employ this tactic in a form that normally begins with: “Americans need…”; is it because they are more effective among the populace if they appeal to emotion rather than reason?

Side: No,No, and No.

I think I see what you are getting at here. As I said I wouldn't claim any knowledge of this sort of thing.

I think that the people listed would not unanimously respond the same (as per example). In the use of definite though slight language a speaker while inciting an absolute response (positive to his motivations) would be ultimately giving a statement of ambiguous meaning in order to cover the fallacy when requested.

Again coerrections please.

Side: No and ?

What is the purpose of this debate, Lawnman?

Side: No and ?
1 point

(Perhaps this debate can help evidence the importance of quantity in discourse.)

The purpose is to illustrate the importance of the distribution of the quantity of the terms of a proposition. It also is intended to evidence the limits of inference that are derived from quantity.

Albeit, I think the question is non-offensive, partly humorous and consequently lends itself to addressing issue of sound-thinking verses issues of bias-thinking.

This is an exercise in formal logic with a little humor.

(Learning formal logic need not be formal,bland or boring.)

Side: No,No, and No.

I doubt that the people on here are smart enough to argue this.

You may have noticed my latest debate: "What is a house?" It is a psycholinguistic and philosophic quandary. Perhaps you should like to partake in said debate?

Side: No and ?

OK, I pick this side. So did i get the question right ;)

Side: No,No, and No.
1 point

Yep, as though you didn't know.:)

Well, second thought: We had a mutual result of a coin toss.:)

Side: No,No, and No.

No, No and No. Goody, can I have a cookie?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Side: No,No, and No.
1 point

I will moderate this debate until it can't be moderated or is no longer subject to reason.

Side: No,No, and No.
1 point

Please correct me if I am wrong, and I mean it dammit.

The debate question could have been : Black people steal.

In which case a simplified question would have been, are generalizations wrong. To which I wholly agree.

I like shadow boxing =P

Side: No,No, and No.
1 point

The debate question could have been : Black people steal.

In which case a simplified question would have been, are generalizations wrong. To which I wholly agree.

As a stand-alone statement, which lacks a context of the intent of the speaker, it is not a generalization. It is by itself only a statement of fact wherein the subject ‘Black people’ is understood as an undistributed subject. However, what normally occurs when people encounter a statement such as that they often falsely understood it as a generalization.

This is all about inference from the undistributed quantity of the subject of an assertion or premise. And yet when the distribution is uncertain people tend assume the assertion is universal; especially when the assertion is capable of invoking an emotional inference.

Here are some examples of what I speak. Judge for yourself how you apply quantity when the quantity is not certain. Also, take note of when you tend to infer universality according to the color (emotional attachment) or nature of the assertion; and its impression on your sentiments.

Water in Mexico is not safe to drink.

Poor people are hungry.

Rich people are wealthy.

Democrats were clothing in public.

Conservatives hide homosexuality.

Popes bless lovers of boys.

Bagpipes make wonderful sound.

Oil-leaks destroy the environment.

White people collect un-employment benefits.

Black people collect welfare.

Red People collect food-stamps.

Black people are dark in skin color.

White people are pale.

Does that help?

Side: No,No, and No.