Setting The Baseline. Debating vs. Pontificating

Yes, I am still for the most part abstaining from the sewer that is partisan political "debate," as it is horribly and viciously done here in America, these sad, bad days. Thought occurred to me to show why what many folk have been doing is TECHNICALLY 'debating,' perhaps it would be more fitting if not accurate to call it 'pontificating.'

First, a standard def. of debating:


debate
One entry found for debate.

Main Entry: 2debate
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·bat·ed; de·bat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French debatre, from Old French, from de- + batre to beat, from Latin battuere
intransitive senses
1 obsolete : FIGHT, CONTEND
2 a : to contend in words b : to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments
3 : to participate in a debate
transitive senses
1 a : to argue about b : to engage (an opponent) in debate2 : to turn over in one's mind

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=debating


Then, a standard def. of pontificating:

Definition
pontificate
Show phonetics
verb [I] DISAPPROVING

to speak or write and give your opinion about something as if you knew everything about it and as if only your opinion was correct: I think it should be illegal for non-parents to pontificate on/about parenting.(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=61445&dict=CALD

Here comes the commentary. Based on the definitions, it cold be said that yes, even if one argues in an obstinate and disrespectful way, it is still technically debating.

However, perhaps we should use the word pontificate, whenever someone argues in a manner that is obstinate and/or rude.

Problem is, that obstinancy and rudness are now so common and seemingly accepted as the norm (thank you NOT, Talk Radio Hosts, for defining downward, the standard and norms) that trying to get many people to drop the hatefullness, the dogmatism, and ugliness is now a seemingly impossible task. (*sigh*)

My next comment is personal, and some readers here who know my history and the fact I used to swim in that sewer all the time, should be able to attest to the following:

Fawking Hell! If Abstentus can give up that shit, anyone can. He used to be one harsh bastard (and tricky too!)

Some last thoughts, and I will sort of tie in that uncheerful practice known as sarcasm.

As I imagine, anyone who reads this knows that the basically shitty and witless form of insulting reparte, sarcasm, is an often employed alongside or in concert with the crass and boring pontificating that is so common, nowadays.

Now it occurs to me (and I admit, not an original thought) that whether or not someone's use of sarcasm seems at all amusing or justified in the eyes of another, seems mostly, if not entirely dependent on that other's feelings about the target of the shitty sarcastic remark.

For example:

Jim-Bob directs an acidic, vitrol-laden, personally-insulting piss-stream of sarcasm at Tracy. You think Tracy is a stupid git. Under that circumstance, you find Jim-Bob's use of sarcasm to be funny and justified.

However, when Jim-Bob unleashes his sarcastic piss-stream of hate at Lucy, whom you thing the world of, you find Jim-Bob's use of sarcasm unfunny and unjustified, under that circumstance. So much so, you decide to call Jim-Bob a nasty, hateful, excuseless asshole, and you do so.

Now would not the world be a better place if everyone called Jim-Bob a nasty, hateful, excuseles asshole when ever he is pissing in someone's eyes (so to say) no matter who is on the target end of his piss?