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

I thank mongeese for this debate. As I have done in my past debates, all I will simply do is quote him and respond, since I feel this is adequate enough given his response. ==================== Quoting and responding ==================== "My opponent claims that there are "many" debates about finding the correct definition. However, that would contradict my own experience in debating." ----> Right, because your experience in debating is so comprehensive it includes every serious intellectual topic of discussion...no. As I've mentioned, abortion debates in defining personhood is an example. Often free will debates (among those who actually understand it) as well, along with debates on morality, etc. "However, there are many different truths out there, and the truth being concerned depends on the definitions." ----> There is no such thing as "different truths", there is only objective truth. To make such an incredible claim I'd expect at least some reasoning behind it, but you fail to give any and assume as if this was true. Your example of "what came first, the chicken or the egg" is absolutely horrible - that isn't a difference in the nature of truth values, but rather a difference in semantics. Once again, your analogies completely miss the point. "However, if I can assign any definition I want to "Xebo" (as my opponent has conceded), why can I not do the same thing with "personhood"?" ----> Ugh, you miss the point yet again. What you did wasn't a SEMANTICAL difference, but a LINGUISTIC one - given that "Xebo" is not a recognized word (let's assume this). You saying that you can focus on a specific aspect of personhood by deciding what the definition is, but this assumes a stable conception of personhood; otherwise how can you specify an aspect of it? "Secondly, it would be rather clear that the Instigator wants to debate about whether or not there is any sword-wielding video game character between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer." ----> The point of the example was to demonstrate that there are times when you are abusing the definition of a word to prove an irrelevant point; effectively, it's called equivocation. So in other words, the instigator in R1 can easily define personhood or free will as something trivially true, and claim that his position is correct in light of this...which should not be the case. "Equivocation relies on the idea that the definition of "Link" in the resolution is different from the Instigator's chosen definition. However, as the resolution was written and defined by the Instigator, this would quite simply be impossible. " ----> No, equivocation happens when you abuse/ignore the context in which the word is used. Words can have different meanings at particular times, and to equivocate is to purposely ignore the correct one and use another one. Observe the common example given in logic classes: A feather is light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore, a feather cannot be dark. This is obviously false in all other contexts, but the instigator is simply playing around with words to suit his desires. "First, let's say that "personhood" is in the resolution, and is defined as "having human genetics." In this case, "personhood" is still just a placeholder in the resolution for the definition "having human genetics," and should be read as "having human genetics." So, a fetus would have "personhood" by the definition introduced by the Instigator. The Instigator would obviously be looking to debate on the genetics of fetuses." ----> The debate would be looking on the genetics of fetuses? Even though that is a potential debate topic, it's pretty obvious that fetus' do have human DNA, and rather the issue is with your definition - it's highly contestable. So no, the contender shouldn't be forced with having to deal with a definition he doesn't agree with, just like he doesn't have to accept premises he doesn't find to be true. Furthermore, your idea from R2 about the contender showing the instigator's definition of personhood has no legal or moral relevance is a dull point - so what, that's an option the contender can take but there are others as well. "Depriving the Instigator of such a debate after it has already been clarified would be unfair. " ----> You aren't depriving the Instigator of anything; you're simply arguing against his definition. As reminded before, he can always DEFEND IT. "Now, if "personhood" is used to support a contention, then the Instigator can merely argue that such a definition of "personhood" has no moral relevance." ----> This is a ridiculous point, it doesn't matter if the definition appears in an argument or in your resolution; they are both still tenable. "To suddenly force the Instigator to debate about connections when he wanted to debate about video game characters would be unfair to the Instigator, as he already made the resolution as clear as can be." ----> Once again, you are twisting my words. Who said the contender would "force" the instigator to debate about something else? To contend a definition is like to contend any other point/argument/etc. - point is, THE INSTIGATOR CAN DEFEND HIS OWN DEFINITION IF CHALLENGED. "Free will has multiple different extremes, and therefore, the extreme chosen by the Instigator to be debated should be observed" ----> What?! Sure, people have different conceptions of what free will is but ultimately it must only be one of them, which is the point of the debate. Overall, your argument here misses the point or understanding of the Source model; for instance, there are no "different versions of the Source model". "...and the relationship between Source model and free will depends on the definitions of each, but any connection between the two as defined by the Instigator could still be debated whole-heartedly" ----> Yeah, but if the instigator wrongly defines free will or even the Source model, and uses this as fuel to support free will, then the contender has a great oppotunity to demonstrate the error in his opponent's thinking. "In all of my opponent's examples, I have shown why attacking definitions is either unfair or unnecessary." ----> It's not unfair because I never stated the instigator must be forced to accept the contender's revision; just like any other argument, he can defend it. And even if it's not entirely necessary, if it's an option then so be it - just like how many arguments can be attacked succesfuly in various ways. "If the word is in the resolution, attacking the definition is unfair because it shifts the debate from the truth chosen by the Instigator to a completely different truth" ----> Ignoring your abhorrent usage of the word "truth", even if the Instigator intended for a different debate if he had a bad definition then he is culpable for being attacked for this in the same way someone can start a debate and have it shift to another discussion because his base assumptions are being challenged. ==================== Conclusion ==================== All in all, mongeese's argument has been quite weak. It's a clutter of strawmen (I never stated the instigator must be forced to accept the contender's revision), misunderstandings (he stumbles over the Source model example), fallacies (false dichotomies), and absurd claims with little to no reasoning behind it (claiming there is no one, objective truth) in a while. I'll say it one more time: like any argument or premise, a definition in many instances can have a truth value. If we want to know what free will is, then the phrase "free will" should refer to some aspect/characteristic/etc. that exists thus giving a definition pulpable grounds to be labeled correct or incorrect. When this is so, defining such a phrase is the same as making an argument, thus meaning the contender can and often should challenge the definition.