Definitions posted by the Instigator in Round 1 of a debate are more like rules than contentions.

All comments about me misreading the rule I will give one answer: I'm sorry that I misread read the rule. Now to the debate. .. It seems that the first half of my opponent's argument has to do with my misreading. The second half is when his actual argument comes in to play. < > Here are some of the debates my opponent is talking about: . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... If a person disagrees with a rule they must either make a rule which allows them to at least talk about the rule or risk losing from breaking the rule. If someone breaks a rule they lose the debate. << If you were to accept the PETA debate, would it be right for you to ignore one of Charlie's rules and place arguments in an improper format? No. Additionally, if I were to define "table" as "a piece of furniture consisting of a smooth flat slab fixed on legs," would it be right for you to accept the debate, and argue that the definition should be changed to: "a systematic arrangement of data usually in rows and columns for ready reference"? No. So, it is clear that a person should accept definitions and rules with the debate. >> Definitions posted by the instigator should be allowed to be debated. Your whole argument is that if they argue the definition they should lose. This is not up to you it is up to the voter. If they think that the instigators definitions were wrong and that the aff was right to debate them, he should get the points. If the aff debates stupid definitions then they should lose to the instigator. The point is that it's okay to debate a rule but it's up to the voter to decide if it was necesary. < > Debating should not have rules though as rules constrict the arguments of the debators. To restrict one in a debate that requires free speech defeats the whole point of the debate. < > They are also what constrict the aff. I'm not saying that definitions shouldn't be adheared to most of the time by the aff from the instigator at all. I'm just saying that there are times when definitions need to be debated and changed to further help the progress of the debate. < > The contender should have the right to do this. Although this would probably mean an automic loss for them, it still should be allowed. It is their choice on how to structure their argument and the instigator can't tell them how to do it. It is up to the voter to decide who was right and who was wrong in the debate. In a debate on this website everything should be ALLOWED to be contested. Whether some things should or shouldn't be contested is up to the voter, not the instigator of the debate. If the instigator doesn't want his definitions contested he should say something like "Whoever excepts this debate MUST follow these definitions". Now if he does that the contender still CAN debate the definitions, but doing so would most likely result in an automatic loss. Once again, my main point is that in a debate everything CAN be and should be ALLOWED to be contested. Whether they SHOULD be contested is up to the voter in deciding who did better in the debate. Thank you and good luck with your next round.