Resolved: A unicorn has one horn.

I'll start by refuting your definition. There is no warrant as to why etymology of words is key to understanding their meaning. I argue that common use is more acceptable since the common use of a word offers greater ground for debate and doesn't skew ground. Additionally, interpreting words using a Latin etymology is an extension of the Neo-Colonialist mindset that puts Anglo-Saxon Whites superior to all other races. If you pursue this definition this argument will become crucial to the debate. Finally, I am the crafter of the resolution and know the intent of the word Unicorn was indeed about a mythical creature. As EXPLICITLY stated in the ground rules for the debate our arguments are supposed to center on the truth value of a proposition concerning a non-existent being. If my opponent refuses to address the debate on these grounds I should get the win because A) He is unfairly morphing the debate. B) His interpretation destroys educational value in that we could just interpret resolutions to take the path of least resistance for our side making debates mundane burdens arguments like this one which miss the point. And C) His interpretation destroys education because I have offered an opportunity for young adults like ourselves to engage in a timeless debate considered of great importance and he is trying to cheapen it. My counter definition is "a mythical creature resembling a horse, with a single horn in the center of its forehead: often symbolic of chastity or purity." ( "Unicorn." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 15 Jan. 2010. http://dictionary.reference.com...;. ) My thesis is that it is not true that a Unicorn has one horn because Unicorns do not exist. I. Truth requires a relationship to reality. The common definitions of truth are: 1. the true or actual state of a matter 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like 4. the state or character of being true. 5. actuality or actual existence. From the same source. All of these definitions require that that which is true have its basis in what is real or verifiable. By definition, then, propositions cannot be true because they are neither verifiable nor do they have a basis in what exists. II. Accepting the truth value of propositions which concern nonexistent subjects leads to irrational conclusions. If, as the resolution suggests, we can indeed offer true propositions concerning nonexistent subjects then language is inherently useless. For all that it takes to form an intelligible sentence in the world of the affirmative is to have the requisite parts. However, this is nonsensical sense language is a medium of communication not merely a tool for mental/lingual masturbation. For example, the purpose of saying "I think, therefore I am." is to convey a message. No matter what translation the speaker is conveying to the audience that his thoughts are what confirms his own existence. However if the speaker said " I hotchpotch therefore I tinkle." he conveys no message. This isn't simply because we aren't clued in to his vocabulary it is because the words which he uses make no reference to things which exist. In the world of the affirmative the speaker would simply scoff at us and tell us how useless we are and how obviously by definition if I hotchpotch I must also tinkle! But even if he were to in limited terms 'define' this words the speaker fundamentally misses the point of language as a universal tool to convey messages, not simple a toy to invent new meaning. Therefore, because language is a tool for communication and is not simply malleable at will, we cannot propose the truth value of a resolution concerning a nonexistent subject. Therefore we must negate on face. There is so much more to this debate however I reserve the right to bring up new arguments in the next 2 rounds. Thank you to my opponent for accepting. This promises to be interesting.