3 ms·

> Definition of a game per Google: > A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck. Resorti

> Definition of a game per Google: > A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck. Resorting to a dictionary definition to argue a point is nearly always a sign you've got a weak argument. But in this case, I want to point out the "esp." just after the first comma in the definition you cite. It means especially. In context, that means that games need not adhere to the conditions specified in the subordinate clause. Also, I swear Wittgenstein had something to say on this topic.

Karunamon 14y ago
>Resorting to a dictionary definition to argue a point is nearly always a sign you've got a weak argument. Or a sign that your opponent is redefining words to fit their argument instead of using the commonly accepted one. Are you telling me it's unfair to refer to an authoritative source as to the meaning of a word? In any case, there has to be some kind of definition or else the word becomes meaningless. By defining Farmville as a "game", you could just as easily define twiddling numbers on an Excel sheet as a "game". Where do you stop? Is Farmville a game just because it has a pretty skin?
- meepmorp 14y ago
  > Are you telling me it's unfair to refer to an authoritative source as to the meaning of a word? Unfair, no. A sign that the argument is weak, yes. Particularly in this case. Also, use is meaning. Dictionaries are authoritative only in the sense that they capture current use at the time of publication. Even in that case, they're often lacking in some word senses and/or connotation because they don't exist in the writer's dialect. >By defining Farmville as a "game", you could just as easily define twiddling numbers on an Excel sheet as a "game". Are you twiddling the numbers as a form of play? Then yes, that'd be a game according to the definition given above. Games don't need to be challenging, or even all that entertaining.

Karunamon 14y ago

>Resorting to a dictionary definition to argue a point is nearly always a sign you've got a weak argument. Or a sign that your opponent is redefining words to fit their argument instead of using the commonly accepted one. Are you telling me it's unfair to refer to an authoritative source as to the meaning of a word? In any case, there has to be some kind of definition or else the word becomes meaningless. By defining Farmville as a "game", you could just as easily define twiddling numbers on an Excel sheet as a "game". Where do you stop? Is Farmville a game just because it has a pretty skin?

meepmorp 14y ago
> Are you telling me it's unfair to refer to an authoritative source as to the meaning of a word? Unfair, no. A sign that the argument is weak, yes. Particularly in this case. Also, use is meaning. Dictionaries are authoritative only in the sense that they capture current use at the time of publication. Even in that case, they're often lacking in some word senses and/or connotation because they don't exist in the writer's dialect. >By defining Farmville as a "game", you could just as easily define twiddling numbers on an Excel sheet as a "game". Are you twiddling the numbers as a form of play? Then yes, that'd be a game according to the definition given above. Games don't need to be challenging, or even all that entertaining.