Heated Debate Corpus Test
Theme: Grammar & syntax · 10 sentences.
DEB-001 · Heated Debate Corpus Test
S539
la-to ne vo-fe
A opens: "Knowledge is supremely valuable."
Notes
la-to ne vo-fe = knowledge has the property of no-limit-value = knowledge is boundlessly valuable. vo-fe = value-boundary = maximal value (extremal -no-fe suffix pattern, THO-001). Bare opening claim; no correction tools active yet. Round 1, A's position on the table. DEB-001 count: 1.
S540
no — la-ka ne vo-fe
B, round 1 correction: "No — action is supremely valuable."
Notes
Clean Round 1 correction: no (denial) + — (suspension) + la-ka ne vo-fe (B's replacement claim). Identical structure to S532 (COR-001). The denial is fresh — A just stated the claim for the first time; no — Y is fully appropriate and not yet stale. Round 1, correction clean. DEB-001 count: 2.
S541
ya, la-to be lo-ka
A advances evidence: "Look — knowledge builds action."
Notes
A escalates from assertion to causal argument. ya (attend to this — CVP-001 S528: ya before a major claim) + la-to be lo-ka = knowledge grows/produces action. A is asserting the causal arrow to → ka. ya in adversarial discourse: "this is the argument you cannot dismiss." No affect claim; purely content-directed. ya is productive in heated register without importing emotional valence. DEB-001 count: 3.
S542
no — la-ka be lo-to ; no la-to be lo-ka
B, round 2: correction with reversed causal arrow.
Notes
B counters A's causal argument. no — la-ka be lo-to = no — action builds knowledge (reversed causal direction: ka → to); ; (sequential); no la-to be lo-ka = knowledge does not build action (explicit denial of A's causal claim). The no — Y ; Z correction-chain from S533. no — is still appropriate at Round 2 — A introduced a new specific causal argument requiring explicit rebuttal. Round 2, two-beat correction + counter. B's full causal position stated. DEB-001 count: 4.
S543
ya — la-mi to lo-vo ; la-mi ka-vo
A, round 3: heated personal testimony — the Socratic move.
Notes
A advances to personal testimony: ya — (CVP-001 S531, attention + suspension = "look —"); la-mi to lo-vo (I know the good = I have knowledge of what is valuable); la-mi ka-vo (I do the good = I act with value). ; chains the two clauses: knowing and doing presented as A's lived evidence. This is the Socratic position from inside: I know the good and I do the good — therefore knowledge produces action. In adversarial register, ya — is "attend to this" said to an opponent who has twice denied the general claim; A is now offering personal evidence, harder to deny than an abstract assertion. Round 3, A at full rhetorical strength. DEB-001 count: 5.
S544
no — la-ka be lo-to ; no la-to be lo-ka
B, round 3 with no —: DIAGNOSTIC — the stale-premise problem.
Notes
Propositionally identical to S542. B issues the same correction a second time because A has re-asserted. The staleness problem: no performs a denial of A's position — but at this point in the debate, both parties (and any listener) already know B rejects A's claim. no was load-bearing in S540 (first denial, new information); it was useful in S542 (explicit counter to A's new causal argument); here in Round 3, A has not introduced a new argument — A has only reasserted with personal evidence. The no — sends the listener back to A's knowledge-primacy claim for the third time. It re-activates a denial that no longer adds informational content; the opposition is already established by context. This is the staleness condition identified in COR-001 S536 and OQ-COR-001 — now demonstrated in an actual multi-exchange rather than hypothetically. B's no — here is discourse-ritual, not informative correction. DEB-001 count: 6 (paired diagnostic with S545).
S545
ke, la-ka be lo-to ; no la-to be lo-ka
B, round 3 with ke: DIAGNOSTIC — pivot without re-engagement.
Notes
Same propositional content as S544; only no — → ke,. The discourse act is different: ke does not invoke A's claim at all. It does not perform a denial. It signals "I am pivoting to my position" — the implicit counter is understood from the established debate context without restating it. The listener does not have to mentally re-activate A's knowledge-primacy claim; B proceeds directly to the argument. In Round 3, ke says "you know where I stand; here is the case for action." no — says "before my case, let me re-perform the denial you already know I hold." In sustained adversarial dialogue where both positions are known to all participants, the re-performance of the denial is conversationally heavy. ke is not evasion — it is discourse efficiency: it conserves the denial that context has already established. First genuine multi-exchange corpus instance where ke is clearly more appropriate than no —. OQ-COR-001 qualifying attestation: 1/3. DEB-001 count: 6 (paired diagnostic with S544).
S546
la-to be lo-ka / la-ka be lo-to
DIAGNOSTIC: / as debate framing — antithesis, not correction.
Notes
"Knowledge builds action / action builds knowledge." This is what a mediator or dialectician says to frame the dispute symmetrically. The / (parallel partition) registers both clauses as co-equal and formally paired — a structured acknowledgment that both positions have standing. Neither A nor B would use this mid-dispute: / asserts co-equal symmetry; each speaker's claim is that their position is correct and the opponent's is wrong — which is epistemically asymmetric by definition. / is the opening frame used before sides are taken; once sides are taken, no — or ke are the correction tools. Confirms COR-001 S535 in debate register: / = symmetric framing ≠ correction.
S547
ke! la-ka be lo-to
ke! — forced pivot in heated register.
Notes
ke! = ke (pivot, implied denial) + ! (heightened force). The ! follows ke as it would follow no in a forceful bare denial — the force mark modulates the intensity of the pivot without altering its logical structure. Three correction-register forms now distinguished:
| Form | Register | Reading |
|---|---|---|
no — Y |
explicit correction | "that doesn't hold — rather:" (denial performed) |
ke, Y |
calm pivot | "actually — [advancing my position]" (denial implicit, unhurried) |
ke! Y |
heated pivot | "actually! [with exasperation]" (denial implicit, forceful) |
The scale runs from most explicit to most discourse-efficient under pressure. ke! combination attested; parse clean. DEB-001 count: 7.
S548
he na-Plato — la-ka be lo-to!
he + — + !: three tools in heated direct address.
Notes
Three-element confrontation: he na-Plato (vocative — B calls A by name; G029); — (post-vocative suspension / confrontation beat); la-ka be lo-to! (B's claim with force). The — after the vocative is the post-vocative suspension from EMD-002 position 4 (bare fragment + —, S521 analog): B announces A's name and holds — the — creates the confrontation beat before the claim lands. Combined with !, the speech act has four stages: call → name opponent → hold → deliver with force. na-Plato uses na- (proper-name marker) applied to a named philosopher, as established with na-Laozi (S507), na-Moses (S404 range), etc. he, —, and ! combined in heated vocative address for the first time. DEB-001 count: 8.
Batch Summary
| Entry | Form | Verdict | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| S539 (DEB-001-A) | A: bare assertion | baseline | Round 1 opening |
| S540 (DEB-001-B) | B: no — Y |
adequate | Round 1 correction; denial fresh |
| S541 (DEB-001-C) | A: ya, Y |
adequate | ya in adversarial register; productive |
| S542 (DEB-001-D) | B: no — Y ; Z |
adequate | Round 2; A escalated; explicit rebuttal natural |
| S543 (DEB-001-E) | A: ya — Y ; Z |
adequate | ya — in personal-testimony register |
| S544 (DEB-001-F) | B: no — Y ; Z (3rd) |
stale | Round 3; no re-activates already-known denial; no new information |
| S545 (DEB-001-G) | B: ke, Y ; Z |
ke preferred |
Round 3; ke advances without re-performing known denial; OQ-COR-001: 1/3 |
| S546 (DEB-001-H) | / as moderator frame |
symmetric only | / = co-equal antithesis; not correction; replicates COR-001 S535 |
| S547 (DEB-001-I) | ke! |
attested | heated pivot; three-form register table established |
| S548 (DEB-001-J) | he na-X — Y! |
attested | he + — + ! in vocative confrontation; first triple-combination |
Generated from registry/entries.yaml.