Blogging is not real communication

I accept the negative stance on the debate and will argue the point 'Blogging is real communication.' I want to attack the definition given by the affirmative team, the word 'real' is abstract and Pro insists on defining it via personal views. For this debate, I would like to state that real means good in this context. 'Blogging is not good communication.' Pro can feel free to use the word good as she pleases in a reasonable context. The other part of the definition I find appalling is the definition of communication. 'Communication is to transmit or pass on by speaking or writing.' Well, what exactly are we transmitting or passing on by speaking or writing? Information? Words? Another reason why I refuse this definition is because of its bad English, when it comes to definitions, grammar is one of the most important parts. The Pro's grammar here isn't too bad but it provides a small level of ambiguity, which is unacceptable. Communication, which is a noun, has been defined as a verb by the affirmative team. I don't understand why. In future, I recommend the affirmative team to use sources and not rely on personal knowledge or information. My proposal for an alternative definition for this debate: Real communication: The imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing, or using some other medium. [1] I am unsure whether my opponent is making an introduction in the form of an unclear argument or an unclear argument for an introduction. To be safe, I'll assume it is the latter and refute her opening arguments. My opponent seeks to prove her case by raising some illogical chains of thought then summing them up in a sentence that doesn't fit the described argument at all. For convenience sake, I will state the arguments I see then rebut them accordingly. a) Blogging is not real communication due to the fact that people interpret each blog differently. b) Blogging is not real communication due to the fact that you cannot see their emotions or body language. Pro's first argument is based on the assumption that "Many people take every blog differently," In her own words. Just before I proceed to demonstrate why it is false, I would like to point out that all her arguments are unsupported assertions that are definite. She makes no attempt to satisfy the BOP that she assumed after making these claims. Her argument that 'Many people take each blog differently, [and thus, blogging is not real communication]' does not seek to advance her case in light of the fact that blogging does not cease to be blogging even when people understand it differently. Communication still occurs. Here I am working from the mindset that Blogging is real communication. I will seek to prove that claim in my first argument later on. Furthermore, If blogging is not real communication according to her first argument, then nothing is. It may be true that people interpret blogs differently, (I wouldn't know, she didn't cite a single source for me to check) but it is also true in that case that people interpret everything differently. People can have conversations where they misinterpret each others words, and does that mean that conversing is not real communication? Her second argument, (as I see it) is that blogging is not real communication because you cannot see their emotions or body language. This argument defies her own definition as it did not make allowances for this claim. Normally, I would completely disregard this sort of argument, but I feel that the Affirmative team intended this argument to carry some weight. In response to that second argument, I would like to raise some points for thought. If blogging is not real communication simply because you cannot see their emotions or body language, then the Affirmative team claims that the only sort of communication that is real communication is talking to someone in person. However, she did not mention this at all. So, to give her the benefit, I'll pretend that she did. Emotions are very easy to convey via words. Consider the following: a) My dog is sooo cute! :D -In this situation, its pretty clear that the emotion intended to be conveyed is affection. b) I AM REALLY ANGRY!!!! D:< -In this situation, the text hints at the possibility that someone might be a tab angry. So it is as easy to convey emotion in text as it is in speech. This means that either blogging is either as real a communication method as conversing, or conversing in person is not a real form of communication, in which case nothing is, invalidating the Affirmative's case. My argument. According to the proposed definition, communication is an exchange of information. The bottom line is that if information is exchanged, then there is communication involved. In terms of personal blogs that other people cannot add to, there is a one way exchange, one person is communicating to everyone else. There is no difference between communication and 'real' communication. Blogging is a form of communication. [1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...