Im jus wondering because this freak on the site says owning someone is beating them in a debate and beating them in a battle what do you guys think

__________________

Anytime you win against or make fun of someone or some shit...winning an argument, if someone tries to grind on a ramp and breaks his leg, if someone gets embarrased beyond belief, beating them bad in a battle...etc. those kinds of shits i consider owning =/

__________________

I didn't say it only applies to debates...it applies to beating someone absolutely. It can apply to dissing someone hard, or presenting an argument so valid the person can't contradict it. Anyone who says it only applies lyrically must only think of rap every minute of his life.

No, you didn't. You added 'lyrically' at the end, which basically means that it only applies to music, which is a very narrowminded statement.

i dont think it applies to a debate unless the arguement actually makes sense than yes its considered owning but arguing with someone because they have different view than you thats not considered owning thats just what i think

__________________

...'cartoon-wise'...what the fuck are you talking about.

Okay, let me use an example. Just because you use the term 'rhyme' in rap doesn't mean that only rap rhymes...get it? It doesn't mean the definition applies to only one thing because you're on something...it's still the same definition. Owned is a broad statement that deals with a lot of topics.

EDIT: In a debate if you proof someone elses stance is incorrect, and even if they don't change it like you do, it doesn't mean they haven't been beaten(i.e. owned). My side of the debate makes plenty of sense...I don't know what you're talking about, you're the one who needs to make more sense.

^(to the girl wit lauryn hill in her sig)If you and someone else are arguing, and the other person says something that you cant contradict...then he owned you =/

__________________

not unless i get quiet or watnot if we arguing and it keeps goin on and on and im saying the same thing i said in the beginning and the other person says the same thing they said in the beginning that thats not owning

__________________

Okay, Mysteri, I'm going to put this as simply as I possibly can.


If the debate one presents is correct and the other is proven incorrect, it doesn't matter if the other person is silent. If the person keeps presenting stupid facts, that doesn't mean that the debate continues, it means the person has been owned and is trying to not say the same thing. If you stay with your original statement after being owned, like you do, then you're just a fucking ignorant dumbass.

Kiddy terms:

if one person wins, it doesn't matter if the other person keeps talking, they've still lost.


What's hard to get, Chief, is that it doesn't matter in what area it's put in...in this case the definition is used in it's proper way, not in a narrowed down path. I never said I owned her lyrically, so it has nothing to do with something being lyrical.

don't you know that slavery was abolished


nobody owns anyone, legally anyway...

__________________

ok but wen me and you have an arguement neither you nor me are proven right or wrong so you havent owned me we're jus arguing the whole time now you're adding on to what you saying trying to make me look stupid but for real you're the one looking stupid

__________________

Chief, you just don't get it. We didn't use the term 'lyrical' in our debate, so it has nothing to do with rapping. We used it in the context about debating, so it applies to what the definition applies to during a debate.

^^what............

__________________

- sighs. - Jesus Christ, Mysteri, you never change you're argument and that's the stupidest thing a person can do. Okay, let's get this straight. In past debates I have proven you wrong, meaning I have been right. Even when arguing about it, I'm still right, and by adding more points on I'm just solidifying what I say. You're the one who always looks stupid when you debate because you go and say stupid shit like

'no one wins'

or

'i don't care'

or

'no matter what i won't change my opinion'

and even

'i am entitled to my own opinion'. And for the third time you will say you will, then I will say that the consitution does not extend to the internet so people must abide by the laws set by the controller, and you won't understand and launch into one of the formerly stated statements you always bring up.


Chief, the whole question of this thread is what the term 'owning' applies in what me and Mysteri were doing, which was arguing. So the loose term usage of 'owning' would be incorrect if applying lyrical-wise because what we said had nothing to do with music.

Okay, so, ANOTHER EXAMPLE THAT YOU STILL WON'T UNDERSTAND:

we are playing baseball, and you go by football rules, using the term 'rules' loosely.