Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed

"1) The resolution obviously centers around the fact that Humpty Dumpty didn't fall of his own accord; that perhaps a darker motive was behind Humpty's death, yet was simply written off as an accidental suicide." I did not interpret this debate to center around darker movites; I interpreted this debate to center arround a force of physics taking effect on Humpty Dumpty. "2) Common sense: Obviously, wind or a person's foot has enough energy to exert a force, but if you see someone sitting on a wall, and then become dislodged for no apparent reason, you wouldn't say they were pushed off, you would say they fell off." What we say is not always what is. As long there was a force that physics would classify as a push that took effect on Humpty Dumpty, Humpty Dumpty was pushed. If he was dislodged for no apparent reason, a man who understood physics would know that Humpty Dumpty could only have been moved by either a push or a pull. Gravity was the only possible pull, but it could not have made Humpty Dumpty fall on its own. It needed something to move Humpty Dumpty's center of gravity off of the wall. This must have, therefore, been a push. Common sense, being common, isn't necessarily true. A physics professor would be more reliable in this case than a random hobo. The physics professor would agree with me. "3) Framer's intent: As the framer, I assure you, the reader/voter, that this debate wasn't intended to fall victim to a mindless semantics trap." Then why didn't you say so in Round 1? Any framer's intent can only really have any effect in Round 1. Additionally, the framer's intent plays no part in debate. Only what the framer implied. "1) The wind was too strong- the debate argues that an outside being pushed him 2) He kicked the wall, and thus fell- self-induced, the debate argues that an outside being pushed him 3) He slid to far forward- self-induced, the debate argues that an outside being pushed him" Outside being? That was not in the resolution, at all. It merely says that he was pushed. Any clarification should have been done in Round 1. By Round 2, it is far too late to change the resolution to your own advantage. "Humpty could have had his great fall without being pushed if it was self induced or caused by a non-being agent (such as the wind). We're looking for a non-accidental cause for Humpty's fall." In that case, the resolution should have read something like, "Humpty Dumpty's Great Wall was not Accidental," or "Somebody Pushed Humpty Dumpty," with a clarification that "somebody" could not include Humpty Dumpty. "We have absolutely no reason to believe that anyone wanted Humpty dead. No one wished harm upon poor Humpty." Just because we have no reason to believe something based off of limited information, doesn't mean that it couldn't be true. "And that should be enough to prove my point." Humpty Dumpty was pushed by either the wind or himself. My opponent is attempting to define "push" far too late. His definition isn't even sourced. Something that is "obvious" should have been clarified, so that it really would be obvious for all to see. Common sense is not applicable here, as it only talks about what a random person would interpret something as, without having any analysis of any definitions, as a person who looked at a proper definition of "push" would realize that Humpty Dumpty was, indeed, pushed. The framer's intent means nothing if it was not established in the first round. Therefore, my definition remains. Humpty Dumpty, therefore, was pushed. "1) The semantics argument destroys the entire purpose of this debate. As we're on a debating website (which, coincidentally has a purpose to spark debate), you, the reader/voter, should reject my opponent's definition of 'push', favoring mine as is encourages debate and thoughtful discussion." With the semantics argument, we can debate physics. Definitions that encourage debate should not always be favored. Besides, we can have thoughtful discussions on physics. Physics requires more thought than conspiracy theories. "2) From my Contention 1, we see no reason to believe that Humpty was pushed; no reason to believe that anyone wanted to kill Humpty, and thus are forced to conclude that Humpty's death was tragically, an accident induced suicide. (He fell, he didn't jump)" He could have jumped to induce the fall. We see that Humpty fell; therefore, he must have been pushed off the wall to get off the wall. Now, I'd like to add more to my physics argument. The nursery rhyme implies that Humpty Dumpty hit the ground and shattered into multiple pieces. When Humpty Dumpty hit the ground, he was pushing on the ground. By Newton's Third Law of Motion (http://en.wikipedia.org...), the ground then pushed Humpty. This combination of gravity and the ground pushing on Humpty is what caused Humpty to shatter. Therefore, by Newton's Third Law of Motion in combination with gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org...), Humpty Dumpty was pushed. The resolution is clearly affirmed.