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

I will respond to Pros arguments by numbering the paragraph i respond to and ask that he numbers his arguments next round to make reading the debate easier for the gallery. 1. I asserted it is Pros burden of proof, and seeing as he disagrees i will explain why. His statement is an absolute "its absurd that every debate starts with one arguer defining the words he is using" absurd as i defined in the previous round is clearly a complete extreme and if i can provide a single scenario where their is the slightest bit of wisdom to defining words his argument is negated. if pro wants we can leave it at that and avoid a semantic debate over the word burden. 2. Debate is an art, through experience we learn what types of words will be the subject of semantic disagreement. If we do not define words that are of semantic significance than we risk spending rounds arguing over what we actually agree on. 3. Generally i just define words in my resolutions or major one line arguments, that risk being subject to misunderstanding, English is not a precise language, and in one context a word can mean two similar but critically different things. 4. Above i hope i have answered you rhetorical question. In response to your argument , words are defined to prevent people from using different definitions of the words. 5. I explained i position of the burden in point one. in response to your arguments, We would have to be using radically different definitions of the word absurd for my case to be define everything. Con appears to see only two possibilities, define everything or define nothing. I admit that defining words can be taken to the extreme, which i have seen, but so can repetition, which is your substitute provided in your second to last paragraph. The standard is something that is acquired with experience, knowing the types of words that get you into a semantic debate. Once again one would rarely know if they do not understand a word because they do understand it, just differently, and it is that difference that debaters try to avoid. 6. under my understanding of the word absurd and your resolution "I think its absurd that every debate starts with one arguer defining the words he is using. It makes no sense." You have to prove that their is zero logic in defining words, all you have been arguing is that there is little logic. 7. wasn't shortening arguments your argument against defining words. Redundant examples feels like it would make your debate longer and give them even more to sift through. 8. How do i know what words to look up, or which dictionary to use. I guess we just need to define a dictionary in round 1, as well as a list of words to look up, or just look up all of them. I realize i just used your black and white logic, hoping to convince the gallery that that logic goes both ways, even though i disagree with it. Is your last sentence a general argument, or a comment about my method in round 1 If it was referring act one: Your first round was almost pure satire so i had no arguments to negate, and because your resolution clearly states their is zero logic. You are the absolute, and if you are the absolute, then you have the burden. so i can mount a purely defensive tactic, which requires something to defend against. This is not an attack on your style for opening the first round, i would ask you not to attack mine. A. onto my own argument, as i have demonstrated above if there is any amount of logic to defining any word then Pros resolution is negated. Look at the actual debate found at http://www.debate.org... the two sides spend the entire time arguing about the definition of new. I admit that it was that hole in Pros logic that made con willing to accept the debate, but if not for that hole con would have had no argument. Therefore there would have been a slight bit of logic in pro defining 'new', and slight is very different than zero