Semantical arguments are, in general, just.

I'll start with some general framework, which will be pretty self-explanatory, and then off of those I'll make a general argument. (I kind of mix up "contender" and "instigator" because I am not familiar with this site to the degree where I can accurately use the terms. Use your discretion, but it's pretty intuitive what I mean.) Observations: I. I agree to his definitions, except I'd like to note that semantics arguments RELY on alternative definitions by the CON. It's unfair to say that if I look at the resolution from a different angle than the one the framer does it is semantical, b/c it's just a difference in viewpoint. If I define words differently to exploit the resolution abusively then it falls under the category of semantics. Thus, my entire case isn't a semantics argument because I'm using all of his definitions and just clarifying one (non-abusively, at that.) II. His definition of semantical gives two scenarios, because there is no empirical survey on how often both types of semantics arguments are used, we can conclude them to utilized equally (50%). If we use his definition of "in general" it appears that in order to affirm you would have to prove that semantical arguments are just most of the time, or >50%. Thus, the negative only needs to disprove in one circumstance and you would rightfully negate. (these are his definitions, not mine, we both accept this standard.) III. This debate is a debate on how debate should be operated, thus the calculus you use to determine the victor is one of which side better proves that semantical arguments invalidate or uphold the general principles of debate, or intellectual discourse on the whole. Obviously I don't "deserve" an argument that is abusive, or destroys the purpose that debate was built upon. ARGUMENTS (I can't label these contentions as this is a theory debate, it goes against my nature :)) I'll take this train of thought and start it at his definition of "semantical", he gives us two scenarios: 1) The resolution can be easily abused. 2) The resolution is ill-defined. We'll start at scenario one. Note that this scenario simply means the resolution CAN be abused, he doesn't define that the resolution IS abused, so don't let him draw that conclusion later on. Moreover, any resolution CAN be abused insofar as i can define any resolution to say something else entirely. For example, if I define this resolution: Semantical arguments - elephants are - to be in general - most of the time just - animals. Then there is clear abuse there. So this means we can extend his definition of semantical to every single resolution. So basically in 1 he says that in every resolution it is OKAY for the contender to take the resolution and, "take the debate away from the framer's intent." There are several problems with this: 1: The framer who creates the resolution creates the world in which that resolution exists. To take away the framer's power is clearly abusive: the instigator here is justifying that it is legitimate for his position to abstract the resolution to a degree where the ideas that went into creating the resolution are voided and instead the resolution is restructured to meet the needs of the contender debater. Restructuring this world is abusive because it voids any arguments the framer can make in his original case, so it gives the contender an extra argument in this new theoretical world. 2: Moreover, the framer obviously goes into the round with the mentality to debate what he has chosen, if we redefine the resolution we invalidate the purpose of debate for the framer of the resolution. For example, if I choose to debate High School Policy because the topic is alternative energy and I find that to be intriguing, if I go into a round with an Alternative Energy argument and my opponents decide we are to debate health care then my interest for debating that specific resolution is ignored. It gives the one utilizing the semantics argument an unfair advantage because while the framer's resolution existed before the contender could take it, the contender's alternate reality only began to exist within the round itself, so the framer could not prep for it and could not choose to debate it, instead he is forced. 3: Even if my opponent disproves the abuse I spell out in 1/2, he still needs to prove that the restructuring of the resolution is DESERVED. At the point where I tell you that his definition of semantical DOES NOT ASSERT that the framer of the resolution IS BEING abusive, only that he POTENTIALLY COULD BE, then there is no reason to restructure the debate. Alright, let's go to his "ill-defined" scenario. First, you can drag the first two problems I give you with his first scenario down to the second scenario as they cross apply pretty well. Next, let's note that there is NO BRIGHTLINE on what "ill-defined" or "failed to define" means, some resolutions are just pretty intuitively understood. For example: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States. the 2008-2009 high school policy topic reads pretty clearly. I don't understand how you could misunderstand that, even without definitions. Even this resolution is pretty clear. I don't understand why a resolution necessitates that it is defined when it is clearly understood. He doesn't make this apparent, and neither do his definitions because nowhere in his definition of semantical does he point out that the resolution has to be UNCLEAR, instead he just says it isn't defined. So you carry across the two problems of abuse I give you under the first scenario, then you establish the third problem: 3: Resolutions that are intuitively understood are either: A: clouded up by definitions that distort the resolution from it's original understanding. B: redundantly defined, because you're just defining what we already know. Either way, it's pointless for debate and it doesn't necessitate why they are deserved. POTENTIAL COUNTERARGUMENTS The only way his position has any legitimacy is if: 1: The resolution is already semantically abused by the framer. 2: The resolution is cloudly. But in the first circumstance, you could just choose to NOT ACCEPT the debate, at which point nobody accepts his abusive semantics arguments and they dissolve into nothing. There's a twofold impact here: 1: by not accepting the debate, we make a statement that abusive arguments ARE NOT OKAY, thus we work to destroy their existence. 2: if we were to accept the debate, the statement would be the converse; it would say, "abusive semantics arguments ARE OKAY, let me run one against YOURS" and we just promulgate the kind of ideology we attempt to attack. In the second circumstance, as the contender in the debate you can simply read the framer's case and deduce his interpretation of the resolution from that point on. Like, unless he gives you a bunch of gibberish (which is so rare I can't see it being a reason to vote) then you can just read his arguments. Moreover, if you attempt to REINTERPRET the resolution away from his arguments then the abusiveness harm I talk about for restructuring the world the framer creates can be carried through. Either way, even if semantics arguments are legitimate arguments, I don't see them being "DESERVED" in debate.