Definitions posted by the Instigator in Round 1 of a debate are more like rules than contentions.

Thank you for accepting, crackofdawn. "Now my opponent has tried to set me up for failure. He has 'made a rule' that if I follow I will lose, and if I don't follow I will lose." I don't see how. I am PRO-"A are more like B than C." My opponent is PRO-"A are more like C than B." The purpose of this rule was to prevent my opponent from making arguments like, "Definitions are equally like rules and contentions," or, "Definitions are nothing like rules and contentions," or something along those lines. "I am opposing not only my opponent's main argument 'Definitions posted by the Instigator in Round 1 of a debate are more like rules than contentions.' but also the above rule. For my opponent to make a rule of which I cannot debate defeats the purpose of the debate." I don't see why. I mean, you're against the rule, and yet you're arguing by said rule in your following arguments. You aren't breaking the rule! They only reason for the rule to make this debate unwinnable by CON would be if CON thought that it was impossible to argue that definitions are more like contentions than rules. However, if CON did not think he could debate by the rule, he would simply not accept the debate, or ask if said rule could be removed. "I happen to disagree with my opponent's 'rules' and "definitions.'" No, you don't. You agreed with the definitions, and then you argued within the parameters of the rule. "Because this IS a debate I must be allowed to debate it." No. I don't think you should be allowed to debate such things. If you were to accept one of the "I will not break a rule" debates, and you disagreed with one of your opponent's foundation rules, would it really be right for you to accept the debate, and then say, "I disagree with this rule!" and ignore it? No. If you were to accept the PETA debate, would it be right for you to ignore one of Charlie's rules and place arguments in an improper format? No. Additionally, if I were to define "table" as "a piece of furniture consisting of a smooth flat slab fixed on legs," would it be right for you to accept the debate, and argue that the definition should be changed to: "a systematic arrangement of data usually in rows and columns for ready reference"? No. So, it is clear that a person should accept definitions and rules with the debate. "One example of when a definition was used which should not be used as a rule would be here..." However, in that debate, InfraRedEd did not post his absurd definition until Round 2. This debate is about rules and definitions in Round 1. It is obvious that if you accept someone's debate challenge, and then they make a rule in the second round that restricts you from being able to win, something is messed up, and the Instigator is abusing the debate. However, any definitions and rules mentioned in the Instigator's first round are fully visible to all spectators before they choose to accept the debate. Therefore, if there is a rule or definition in Round 1 that prevents the Contender from winning, this can be solved with nobody willing to accept the debate. Here is a list of things that make definitions more like rules than contentions: If the Contender agrees with the Instigator's definitions, would that really be a contention win for the Instigator? No. The definitions from the Instigator's first round are set in stone just as much as the Voting Period, or the Time to Argue, or the number of Rounds. Definitions are not points to be maintained in debate. They are what define the resolution. Arguing that someone defined their own resolution incorrectly is as bad as saying that they chose an incorrect resolution. Definitions are prescribed guides for action. If the Instigator's definition for school is, "an organization that provides instruction," then that is what school means every time it is brought up, unless specified otherwise. The Contender cannot say, "I think that we should change the definition to: 'a large number of fish or aquatic animals of one kind swimming together,' so the resolution no longer makes sense, and cannot be affirmed." It is easier for definitions to be like rules. If a person had to run the risk of having their definitions disputed in the debate, they'd extend every word of their resolution to match the proper definition. This would result in the simple resolution, "Government should pay for the expenses necessary to run a public school," being extended to, "The continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit should make due return to for services rendered or property delivered for the financial burden or outlay to direct the business or activities of an institution for the teaching of children of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs." The first resolution took up less than a line of space in text. The second resolution took up a little more than three lines. It would be easier on the eyes, and much simpler overall, if a person could safely post a simple resolution in the Topic box, and then define everything that needed defining in the Argument. I did this once to a more extensive way by defining words in ways they aren't even usually defined so as to clarify exactly what I mean for the resolution to mean, so that it would run smoothly, in this debate: http://www.debate.org... So, overall, definitions posted by the Instigator in Round 1 of a debate are more like rules than contentions, and my opponent has yet to really affirm otherwise.