Semantical arguments are, in general, just.

This is round three, so I'll just recap our positions, and how the arguments stand. This will be similar to if I went down a flow and made extensions etc. We'll start with an overview: The framer not defining the resolution is not a necessary precondition of a semantical argument being in place, as by your own definition of semantical. (Read the caps.) "a type of argument in which the Contender of a debate USES THE FACT THAT EITHER THE INSTIGATOR USED A RESOLUTION THAT WAS EASILY ABUSABLE OR the Instigator failed to define the resolution so that the Contender could take the debate away from the framer's intent." Either / Or implies that both scenarios are examples of semantical arguments, and not that both of them have to exist simultaneously. You can ignore what he tells you about "most semantical arguments involve failed to define" because his own definition says that only 50% of them do. That said, observations: II. I only need to prove that in one of the scenarios he gives (failed to define OR easily abusable) it isn't just, because that would mean that they are not just "for the most part". He drops this observation. III. You evaluate what is deserved based on abuse etc, that is the only legitimate weighing calculus because we are debating DEBATE THEORY, he doesn't respond to this ever just asserts his own logic. Extend it through. You vote for whoever can prove abuse, or can prove that their opponent's advocacy demeans debate. His arguments for "they have to plausible definitions that occur frequently" can be dropped, because: 1: isn't established in his opening case where he framed the debate. If you accept his redefinition then you invalidate my opening position and i have to write an entire new one if i want to even catch up. That's abusive, he's getting more ground here than he ought to. Think links into the weighing calculus i give in observation three, so this is the first reason to vote for me. 2: He doesn't refute any of my logic, his rebuttals are blippy at best he just basically says, "you can ignore it because they have to do with ridiculous scenarios" but that's not what I say at all, I give that as a general observation that was utilized as an independent spike, saying that by affirming you're saying semantical arguments in any resolution are just. I say that ANY RESOLUTION CAN EASILY BE ABUSED BY A TWIST IN WORDPLAY. This means that ALL resolutions fall under his first scenario. For example: Semantical - his definition are - to be in general - for the most part just - only Those are legit definitions of all the words, and one could make the argument that semantical arguments are not for the most part the only arguments you can make so you would negate. This isn't a reason to vote for me, only his advocacy can then be extended to every debate. 3: "My opponent cites unrealistic examples that, in general, don't ever happen. By the "in general," it becomes irrelevant." ... did you even read the argument? Here's what i'm saying, spelled out cleanly: The instigator opens with a case, structured around his definitions (as per your first scenario) or with no definitions. Either way, he gives you an argument. The contender changes the world the resolution presents, invalidating the ground the instigator stood on. This gives the contender extra-time to refute etc, as they have the opening speech AND the ending speech. THIS IS ABUSIVE. He doesn't attack that at all, his arguments are irrelevant anyways bc my abuse impacts apply to every single type of semantical argument. Extend it. Second reason you vote for me. 4: As for my 2nd impact, the "topic choice" one, he says: "You claim that there are semantical arguments that don't use sourced definitions. Prove it." This doesn't refute what I say at all... if you, the judges, comprehend the argument then you realize that he drops it - extend that across also. For those who don't, i'll highlight it: 1: The framer has a mind to debate a specific topic, thus he establishes the debate resolution to fit what he wants to talk about. He doesn't know who his contender is, but he knows that he wants to debate X with him. 2: The contender has the CHOICE to debate that topic or not, by agreeing to debate he accepts the instigator's topic. By CHANGING THE PARAMETERS, the contender takes the debate from it's intentions and towards his own (as per the definition of semantical) which means that while the framer had NO CHOICE BUT TO DEBATE THE TOPIC HE GIVES, THE CONTENDER CAN EITHER DEBATE THE TOPIC, OR HIS SKEWED INTERPRETATION OF IT. This is CLEAR abuse, it gives the contender unlimited ground in the debate. ""I was just saying some resolutions are intuitively understood and do not warrant definitions. I give the high school policy resolution as an example." High school policy. There are a lot of things that could be called high school policy. What about their lunch policy? What about their finals policy? Wikipedia doesn't even have a high school policy page. That's far too vague for most people to understand." Hahahaha. "I showed three debates for my case. Can you show three debates against my case? I'll provide even more...Now you need six examples to prove me wrong." 1: I don't need six examples to prove you wrong. If I stare at a highway and three jeep cherokees pass me by i don't assume all cars are jeep cherokees until i see further proof. That's fallacious logic. 2: It's irrelevant to my case harms either way. 3: your definition of semantical gives you two scenarios anyways... and considering the first one can easily be applied to every resolution ever, I think it's fair to say that the first scenario is far more likely. VOTERS: First, his voter: "My point #2 went unchallenged. It has been conceded." Your point #2 was predicated on the assumption #1 existed. I attacked #1 to invalidate #2. #2 is like: "If someone can beat you with some abusive as hell tricky argument that undermines the purpose of debate, then you deserve to lose on that, therefore you deserve the semantical argument" Let's point out the problems! 1: At the point where I win observation three, this definition doesn't even link into the established weighing calculus for the round so you can drop it entirely. This is the most important reason you negate. 2: It's absurd. Basically he says: "if there is a way I can win, regardless of abuse, then you deserve to lose" which means that theoretically if you start a debate, I could go to your house and beat you to death so that you forfeit all of your rounds, and that is DESERVED because I could win. I don't buy that. My Voters: 1: He is abusively redefining his framework and shifting his advocacy in the debate in order to avoid potential flaws with his definitions or position. He attempts to undermine all of my offense through that, that's unfair, don't let him do that, thus you negate. 2: he has no offense, because at the point where I win Observation III where I tell you WE CAN ONLY VOTE ON ABUSE then his cases doesn't link in AT ALL. 3: I tell you that redefining the resolution through semantical arguments is ABUSIVE as it INVALIDATES the first speech given by the instigator. This point is NOT addressed, it doesn't matter the extent to the semantics as long as they take the debate away from the framer's intent (WHICH HIS OWN DEFINITION SAYS) the impact carries through. He dropped this argument. 4: Also he dropped this argument. I'll quote myself from round one: "It gives the one utilizing the semantics argument an unfair advantage because while the framer's resolution existed before the contender could take it, the contender's alternate reality only began to exist within the round itself, so the framer was forced to take it." Clear abuse, regardless of how you define it (it fits the humpty dumpty example fine) Four reasons to negate, one blippy one to affirm: NE