Definitions posted by the Instigator in Round 1 should be treated more like rules than contentions.

Definition - a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Instigator - the person who starts a debate on this site Round 1 - The first round of said debate rule - a prescribed guide for conduct or action (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) contention - a point advanced or maintained in a debate or argument (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) More rules: 1. My opponent has to debate as if the resolution is "Definitions posted by the Instigator in Round 1 should be treated more like contentions than rules," and he/she is PRO. 2. The resolution refers to general cases, a typical debate on DDO, not extreme cases. Sometimes, debaters start a debate with a clear set of rules, such as in the following: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... I think that definitions should be counted as rules. Sometimes, you see people say, "I agree with all definitions stated by my opponent." I think that if a person doesn't agree with a R1 definition, that person should either debate as if he/she did agree or not accept the debate, as one would with a rule. For example, let's say that I started a debate with the resolution, "Most tables are made of wood." In the first round, I state my definition for table: a piece of furniture consisting of a smooth flat slab fixed on legs (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) My opponent then accepts the debate, and says, "I disagree with your definition. I think that the definition should be: a systematic arrangement of data usually in rows and columns for ready reference. These are obviously not made of wood. I win." This would obviously seem very semantical, and very stupid. And yet, it has happened before. http://www.debate.org... I believe that definitions are not disputable in such cases, and must be accepted upon accepting the debate. More reason for this is because when the Instigator posts a definition, the Contender already knows exactly how the debate has been defined, and therefore has the full liberty to either discuss the definitions in the Comments or refuse to accept until definitions are changed. However, if the Contender changes the definition to what the Instigator does not like, then it is too late for the Instigator to back out of the debate. Going by the proposition I support, the Instigator and Contender have completely equal power in determining the definitions of a debate. However, by the proposition my opponent supports, the Contender would have a clear advantage over how the debate will go. Finally, the Instigator defines things to make the debate what he or she wants to debate. If the Contender redefines a word, the Instigator is no longer debating what he or she actually wanted to debate, which is unfair. Both the Instigator and the Contender should approve of definitions, as that is fairest, and definitions are what determine the entire flow of the debate, and that is exactly what the proposal I support does. So, here's a little fact sheet: Definitions are used by the Instigator in Round 1 to show exactly what he means in his resolution. Definitions allow for the resolution to be simpler. Definitions in the Instigator's Round 1 are rarely, if ever, dropped and/or changed, and usually only with agreement between the Instigator and the Contender. If the Contender protests the definition of a word when the word was already clearly defined by the Instigator in Round 1, then the Contender almost always loses the argument, no questions. If a person does not like a definition in the debate, he/she should not accept that debate. Rules are used by the Instigator in Round 1 to show exactly how the Instigator wishes for the debate to work out. Rules allow for the Instigator to have a little bit of control over the debate, although rules are usually equal in restriction for the Instigator and the Contender; few people would accept a debate that is heavily weighted against the Contender by rules. Rules are only used in Round 1, unless both the Instigator and the Contender agree to either abolish or introduce a new rule into the debate. If the Contender protests a rule that was put into place by the Instigator in Round 1, then the Contender almost always loses the argument, no questions. If a person does not like a rule in the debate, he/she should not accept that debate. Contentions are used by the Instigator in Round 1 to show how the Instigator is going to debate. Contentions can be brought up at any time during a debate, with the exception of the Contender's last round. They are used to affirm or negate a resolution, rather than define it. When the Contender protests that one of the Instigator's contentions is false or invalid or wrong, or anything else, this is perfectly normal. The Contender explains why, and then they debate as normal, which does not happen with rules and definitions. If a person does not like the Instigator's contentions, he/she can post his/her own contentions to counter them, and/or point out flaws in the original contentions. This is perfectly okay. Contentions can actually be correct or incorrect, as opposed to rules and definitions. So, definitions and rules are similar in that they are used in Round 1 by the Instigator to show how the debate goes in course and resolution, and it usually takes an agreement to drop or change a definition or rule. They are similar in that when a person disagrees with them, he/she should not accept the debate, rather than argue against them unfairly. Thank you to whoever accepts.