Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TryinOutSomeBadIdeas

T-Persons

Recommended Posts

First Let me preface this with, Yes I understand that it is stupid, however I've been running into the same dilema, going back and forth. Now provide ur comments.

 

Also this is probably a waste of your time. If you are a good debater, as a warning you should probably leave.

 

 

 

For T-Persons

Could you define people as animals, and then animals as not people, which yes is a contradiction however if you defined ALL people as animals (IE of the animal kingdom), however Animals as Not People (IE Animals are not to the same level as humans), then people would not be people.

 

I think you need to win Def #1 precedes Def #2 which i have no idea how that makes any sense.

 

Anyways provide any thoughts on this ridiculous T arg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your opponent would say..."their definitions are internally inconsistent" (if you think about them from the perspective of boolean logic...or even mathematical logic)

Inconsistent definitions don't help resolve anything or provide a brightline.

 

Also, you define the resolution out of existence.

 

And you can't name 5 case areas that meet.

 

Also, under the first definition: they can claim to meet your interpretaion, because they are a subset of (animals+people)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First Let me preface this with, Yes I understand that it is stupid, however I've been running into the same dilema, going back and forth. Now provide ur comments.

 

Also this is probably a waste of your time. If you are a good debater, as a warning you should probably leave.

 

 

 

For T-Persons

Could you define people as animals, and then animals as not people, which yes is a contradiction however if you defined ALL people as animals (IE of the animal kingdom), however Animals as Not People (IE Animals are not to the same level as humans), then people would not be people.

 

I think you need to win Def #1 precedes Def #2 which i have no idea how that makes any sense.

 

Anyways provide any thoughts on this ridiculous T arg.

 

 

The answer to this is 99% of the other literature says people are people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First Let me preface this with, Yes I understand that it is stupid, however I've been running into the same dilema, going back and forth. Now provide ur comments.

 

Also this is probably a waste of your time. If you are a good debater, as a warning you should probably leave.

 

 

 

For T-Persons

Could you define people as animals, and then animals as not people, which yes is a contradiction however if you defined ALL people as animals (IE of the animal kingdom), however Animals as Not People (IE Animals are not to the same level as humans), then people would not be people.

 

I think you need to win Def #1 precedes Def #2 which i have no idea how that makes any sense.

 

Anyways provide any thoughts on this ridiculous T arg.

 

I don't think you garner ANY strategic advantage in doing this. Looking at other definitions for "persons", which is the language of the resolution, your alternative cases for people that aren't people aren't great, if there even are any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...