Debaters shouldnt have to define the words they are using in their debate

The burden rests with con. If it is necessary to define each and every word we use then why leave it at only debates? Why not in casual conversation as well? We all can admit that even casual conversation can be ambiguous. In fact, it is casual conversation which is often times the most guilty of this... and yet we all manage to understand one another just fine. If ever we are confused, we ask for elaboration. Providing unsolicited elaboration "just in case someone might be confused" is excessive and redundant, to say the least. If we are to provide definitions in debate, then how are we to decide which words need be defined? Why not all of them? Is there some rule of thumb as to which words will confused you and which wont? How am I to know before my opponent explicitly asks? Am I supposed to be psychic? Should I then define EVERY word I use? Reading this post from first word of the first sentence, I suppose need to defined "the", "burden", "rests", "with", and "con". Then I suppose I should define each word used in those definitions as well. In the end, Id might as well copy and paste the entire dictionary. Where do you draw the line? You could simply "declare" or assert that there is a line, but what criteria sets the position of that line? What words sit on this side and what words sit on the other, which words must necessarily be defined and which need not? I cannot know what will and what will not confuse my readers, and therefore I cannot know what to and what not to define. All I can do is use the English that I know and hope that those who would converse intelligently with me can swallow their pride enough to ask when confused about something. Isnt that all we can do in society when faced with our own ignorance? I say the burden rests with con because if the contrary were true, and we default to a "lets define everything mentality", then it can be taken to absurd extremes which are perfectly justified since my opposition cannot provide an explicit and reasonable standard. Absent of a standard, all any of us can do is use the language we know, educate ourselves on the language we dont know; and above all quit faulting our oppositions for failure to define simple English words when it is our own fault for not understanding. Especially since words are easy to look up... words that, if they truly do stump you, then you truly have no business responding with a rebuttal in the first place. By the way, "its your burden" is yet another "get out of jail free" "relinquish myself of the need to provide intelligent rebuttal" fallacy that many are guilty of. I need not have concise language to be understood. I write with simple to understand vocabulary and provide redundant examples and explanations to ensure that I communicate my intended meaning. Failure to understand me, regardless of any misuse of precise definition, is hardly a fault of mine I would think. Since I quite clear at my point. Faulting me for it is not a legitimate criticism but an escape from the obligation to argue. If you have no dictionary or the will to use it, and you lack the inclination to explicitly ask for elaboration when confused, AND lack the mental faculties to grasp my meaning in 5000 words of text which comprise primarily of reiterations of the same point in a variety of ways... then I say the fault lies with you. Why then do very very clear argument get tossed aside with quickies like "your burden" and "please define"?