A New Series--Classic Debates
You may or may not know that I went through undergrad on a full-ride debate scholarship. So I like to argue. And I have found that some of the greatest arguments of all time occurred within the walls of the University of Cincinnati. Todays topic was the neverending debate of whether or not you can have more than one nemesis.
Clark always argued that a person can only have one nemesis. This had come up near the year 2000 when he replaced Budelski as his millenial nemesis. I was the replacement. He defined nemesis as being your chief enemy, and as such you could only have one of them. Bjorn was on this side of the debate.
I argued that you can have as many nemesi(s?) as you want. Your arch nemesis is your primary enemy.
posted by UCLaw98 @ 10:30 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
I think it might be a closer call then Bud paints it.
MW.com defines nemesis as:
1 capitalized : the Greek goddess of retributive justice
2 plural nem·e·ses /-"sEz/ a : one that inflicts retribution or vengeance b : a formidable and usually victorious rival or opponent
The use of the term "one" in the definition implies, well, one. I realize that you could have many people (or things) that are inflicting vengence or retribution, but the implication is that this is a pretty bad actor and is somewhat singular.
I also note that the Greek Goddess was "one". It wasn't something like the League of Nemeses.
I think you only have one true nemesis at any one time, although some nemesis drift in and out of one's life.
If that definition holds, the arch nemesis would be the biggest nemesis that one had in their entire life (think Prof. Morriarty to Sherlock Holmes).
As an aside I didn't realize that the nemesis was usually victorious. That kind of sucks for Bob Cook.
-Moose
Post a Comment
<< Home