sheepdog wrote: Because 'words' is obviously equated by its connotation to meaning a 'higher vocabulary.' Oh, except that it's not.
Your initial example doesn't even work. 'Verbal fencing' would be testing the wit of the contestant. The words themselves cannot combat each other. Are you saying he who uses the larger vocabulary, and not the better logic and reasoning, wins? Well to that, I reply:
Epistemology
Assiduous
Reconnaissance
Hypnopaedia
Electrophotomicrographically
Intrinsically
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
Antediluvian
Honorificabilitudinitatibus
Etcetera
fenc·ing (n)
-The art or sport of using a foil, épée, or saber in attack and defense.
-Skillful repartee, especially as a defense against having to give direct answers.
ver·bal (adj)
-Of, relating to, or associated with words: a detailed verbal description
See, I can use a dictionary too. Except my words prove my point. Yours just prove you can copy and paste.
I will extrapolate on these definitions to possibly broaden your understanding of just what exactly verbal fencing means. It is using words skillfully in either attack or defense of your point, concept, or idea.
I never said logic and wit were unimportant in the dueling of words because I was only referring to his and now your inability to confer rational thoughts eloquently. I commend you on your effort to be logical but in some cases not all sentences are to be taken literally. We have these ideas called abstractions which we use in the forms of metaphors and similes. So even though you are correct and words cannot actually combat each other we are able to use them as arguements, which is a form of combat in my opinion.