CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I would say this side.... now when Bubba said he "didn't have sex with that lady"... he was lying because oral sex is sex... but I wouldn't say he had intercourse with her.... but I guess it depends on want your definition of is is??? or something??? Hell! I don't know. Don't ask me.
"Sexual Intercourse" means specifically coitus, or vaginal penetration
"Oral intercourse" means specifically oral penetration
and
"Anal intercourse" means specifically anal penetration
"Intercourse" in general has a broad meaning, more akin to "penetration" than simply "genital contact," IMO (you can't really have hand penetration sex).
However, I personally would more readily refer to "sexual intercourse" than any other form when using the term "intercourse" alone.
Legal Dictionaries and Medical Dictionaries are the proper sources to consult when it comes to disputing word definitions. The layman's language gets bastardized far to quickly and far too often to be of any actual use in understanding others.
I'm more inclined to take a medical dictionary's word relating to anatomical matters than a general purpose use dictionary. It is a higher authority.
On legal matters? Those definitions are designed for communicating in the medical field, they are actually not more official cause it is medical, just more practical for that field.
Sexual Intercourse
The act in which the external male reproductive organ—penis—enters the external/accessible female reproductive tract—vagina
Legal Dictionaries and Medical Dictionaries are the proper sources to consult when it comes to disputing word definitions. The layman's language gets bastardized far to quickly and far too often to be of any actual use in understanding others.
Do you have a legal dictionary then, since it is law and politics that this is about?
How do we prove which one is the proper one. You see this bursts your whole original argument, because now legal dictionaries disagree so now they don't hold as strong of authority as you thought.
The most specific definitions of words are the ones which ought to be used officially.
Because with specific definitions there is far less miscommunication, and no bastardization of the language, and no taking advantage of one's words. All in all, a far more efficient manner of communicating one's thoughts and ideas.
Obviously.
What benefit does a complex and jumbled mix of contradicting communication have on society?
The most specific definitions of words are the ones which ought to be used officially
any physical contact between two individuals involving stimulation of the genital organs of at least one.
That specifically states that of at least one sexual organ is used. So how is that not specific enough? The definition you used is specific in excluding homosexual sexual intercourse.
The definition I used is specifically stating any one of the sexual organs, and only one is necessary.
The most specific definitions of words are the ones which ought to be used officially.
Because with specific definitions there is far less miscommunication, and no bastardization of the language, and no taking advantage of one's words. All in all, a far more efficient manner of communicating one's thoughts and ideas.
How does one abuse more general definitions? If a definition means exactly what it was supposed to mean it can't be abused. Show me an example of how my definition can be abused and I'll show you how it isn't.
Obviously.
What benefit does a complex and jumbled mix of contradicting communication have on society?
None but my definition doesn't contradict itself however, it is just more general, maybe it isn't supposed to refer to anything specific.
We can play semantics all day long, or what definition is better. Do you have an actual argument on how homosexuality harms anyone? Or how your definition is the true definition?
When the word has several different definitions. Each Definition means something, but using the word makes the meaning unclear, and easily twisted into meaning something that was not intended. I'm arguing in general here, not on any specific word or definition.
What really matters is not the word used but the intended definition the word describes. And if you change a word's definition to mean something it was not originally intended to describe, you corrupt the idea it was meant to embody.
If it wasn't intended to mean anything specific then fine, but if it Was intended to mean something specific, then using the more general term gives occasion for deliberate misinterpritation and corruption of the idea that is intended to be described.
But what in the world does this debate have to do with homosexuality? Why are you bringing that up?
When the word has several different definitions. Each Definition means something, but using the word makes the meaning unclear, and easily twisted into meaning something that was not intended. I'm arguing in general here, not on any specific word or definition.
Not with understanding of context and where it is being applied, and if their is still confusion the speaker can elaborate.
What really matters is not the word used but the intended definition the word describes. And if you change a word's definition to mean something it was not originally intended to describe, you corrupt the idea it was meant to embody.
I completely agree, to be fair I think this is something that is defining us here on this debate specifically.
If it wasn't intended to mean anything specific then fine, but if it Was intended to mean something specific, then using the more general term gives occasion for deliberate misinterpritation and corruption of the idea that is intended to be described.
Same thing can happen to words that are more specific, and how are you supposed to refer to things in general without generic words? Generic things exist we need words to define them, Sexuality is very general, but it still exists thus the word should exist.
But what in the world does this debate have to do with homosexuality? Why are you bringing that up?
This debate was made to settle an argument about homosexuality.
How can one know if there is confusion until the listener acts on what he or she thought she heard which may not have been what the speaker was intending to say?
Glad we can agree.
If one is intending to speak broadly, let him do it with broad breath. The existence of broad language gives rise to laziness and encourages against the use of clear and concise language.
Actually I thought the debate was to settle a side-argument related to the other debate, intended to provide a base starting point for further discussion of the previous topic. This debate however, is not the place to bring up the specifics of the other debate, IMO.
How can one know if there is confusion until the listener acts on what he or she thought she heard which may not have been what the speaker was intending to say?
If I say something and your response to it indicates confusion, there we can tell there is confusion.
If one is intending to speak broadly, let him do it with broad breath. The existence of broad language gives rise to laziness and encourages against the use of clear and concise language.
Broad language is required to talk about broad things however. By your logic the word, sexuality shouldn't exist, so how do we talk about sexuality if there is no word for it?
If you say something, and I respond to it according to my understanding of it, and you mistake my actions to mean confusion...
Or my actions are not readily apparent because I don't consider what I thought I'd heard to need any immediate actions...
"the nature relating to the involvement of the male and female genitalia." That's how.
It's a specific definition for a broad subject rather than a broad definition covering several subjects. It is a label for a specific concept. Make a word out of it if you must, but such a word is a label, don't use it for anything else but what it is.
If you say something, and I respond to it according to my understanding of it, and you mistake my actions to mean confusion...
It is confusion if you don't understand what I mean.
Or my actions are not readily apparent because I don't consider what I thought I'd heard to need any immediate actions...
If we are having a discussion, and you respond back not understanding what I meant, I can clarify.
"the nature relating to the involvement of the male and female genitalia." That's how.
Wouldn't it be much easier to just say sexuality? Now you are just making language more effort that it needs to be, we can make language easier and simpler by having broad defining words, and specific defined words.
Beside's my dictionary is specific enough anyways the definition Q used was the same as mine if I'm not mistaken.
Yes, but if their are several definitions existing, what makes any one more correct than another?
You say higher authority, how is that higher authority relevant to the people who live their lives doing something they never saw a need for a definition for?
Words change their meaning often to suit the way people actually use the word. Take for instance the word gay. It didn't always mean homsexual. It was originally happily flamboyant. Dawn we now our gay apparel. Yet the dictionary makers recognized that it was no longer being used in it's original form it was now being used to describe something relatively new, so they edited it based off of what they observed.
The correct definition is the one that the speaker was intending to convey. But if the speaker uses vague language, the listeners have a harder time distinguishing which definition was actually intended. Thus the speaker should use precise language.
Words do change their meaning, that's because the speakers are not either not proficient enough in the language to speak precisely, are intentionally trying to mislead through their use of language, are being sarcastic, or no such word to define the concept being described yet exists. However it comes about, it's a bastardization of the language, and really serves only to harm meaningful communication.
The correct definition is the one that the speaker was intending to convey.
Okay so if I say the word red now means blue, and I try to convey that red is blue, that makes the word red mean blue?
This is not a sound judge of a definition because people would use that excuse I used above, as their meaning behind everything semantic. There are clear cut definitions so that when we want to convey words to one another we know what they mean immediately. Not to try to guess what the meaning could have been.
Mastication means to chew: biting and grinding food in your mouth so it becomes soft enough to swallow.
When you were eating your cereal, you had to masticate. He's trying to make a pun out of mastication and masturbation because this debate has to do with sex.