The Following Character is Immoral and Undeserving of Respect.

I assume my opponent has not read his own source, as nowhere on the page he linked to does it actually say "to refrain from interfering with." In fact, his definition contains four parts: 1. a relation or reference to a particular thing or situation 2. an act of giving particular attention 3. high or special regard; the quality or state of being esteemed; expressions of respect or deference 4. particular, detail; Furthermore, the page my opponent INTENDED to link to is the definition of respect as a verb. It is clear from the resolution that "respect" in this context cannot be a verb. "Respect" is the direct object of "is undeserving", meaning it must be a nominal of some form (http://en.wikipedia.org...). A verb is not an acceptable form of a direct object. Also, if the resolution was about the verb form of respect, it would state "The Following Character is Immoral and Should Not Be Respected." Obviously a very large difference between the grammar of the noun form and the grammar of the verb form. In the first, "respect" is an object, and in the second, "respect," or rather "be respected" is a verb. But nice try. I introduce my own definition, which is clearly the appropriate use: Respect - noun "Esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability" (Dictionary.com). **************************************** Some responses: >> "I will show through several philosophies why said character does in fact deserve at a bare minimum "some modicum of respect"" To satisfy this burden, my opponent must show something that merits respect in the 10 actions I have put forth. However, there is no net respect to be found in any of these actions. >> "If absolutely no respect is given that means anything which could be considered disrespectful would be done to said person. These actions would be far worse than the acts of the person himself." False - lack of respect does not mean DISrespect. Lack of respect is neutral ground. Also, there is no punishment outlined for this character in my argument, so your argument that any action taken against him would be worse than his actions (if such a thing is conceivable) is a complete red herring. >> "By not giving "any modicum of respect" everyone would have to not even in the slightest refrain from interfering with the goings on of said persons life." Here you use respect as a noun... which is it? This doesn't even make sense if we consider the definition of "respect" YOU put forward. >> "If people do not refrain at all then it is acceptable to assume that all forms of interference would be used against said person." WHAT? This makes NO sense. A complete red herring AND an appeal to ignorance. >>"According to Locke's policy the man deserves the equivalent of what he himself delved out." Again - a red herring, but in any event, it's completely moot because we're discussing the merits of this character, not what sort of punishment he deserves. >> "I think we can all agree that the person is obviously beyond saving, and protection of society from said person would be as simple as killing him, an act which would not allow the horrible things suggested by my opponent. I have clearly proven that the person does deserve some modicum of respect." Your "modicum" of respect is killing him because he is "obviously beyond saving." I submit that this counts as conceding the debate. *********************************** Ladies and Gentlemen, my opponent has done nothing to actually address the merits of this character, and has tried to weasel his way out of the argument with a poor semantic argument that has now been rectified. In fact, my opponent has almost entirely conceded the debate by acknowledging that this character is deserving of punishment... Much luck in the next round. AFFIRMED.