Making a word definition a reference in a debate turns it into an argument over semantics.

1. So my opponent doesn't necessarily refute my argument, but just seems to go along with it and then propose that somehow we will be leading up to "instantly accepted" arguments. However, I'd like to point out that their are many debates where definitions are required to be in the constructive, such as LD, or else the opponent may go with their own definition. Thus the idea that a word reference turns a debate into an argument over a meaning is negated, because when an argument is dropped their is no allowance for such an argument. Thus a reference can be made here without an argument over semantics and the debate can move on. 2. My opponent provides a random debate topic without any clear link, so this isn't necessarily acceptable as evidence. Further more one debate does not justify the idea that all debates get into an argument over semantics; further more as my opponent has stated "Debater(s) claimed that 'this is not a semantic debate" thus it can be seen that the majority of people did not think it was a semantic debate, my opponents own opinion can be not be prioritized over a majority. Everybody's opinion matters. 3. I don't see how this is contradictory, I'm making a point that a definition can be made in a debate without argument over the meaning. My opponent has not refuted or argued against my definition so basically a word reference can be made without an argument over definitions. My opponent may argue against the morality of the argument, but she still has not proved that this turned the debate into one over semantics. I argue that all I did was I made a valid definitional use to prove my point and my opinion is just as reliable as my opponents is. 4. I agree that when debaters become "preoccupied with their. .word-choices, the words become the only things that matter", however then my opponent is basically stating that the debate is only about the word-choice. If debaters make the logical choice to argue over word definitions then yes the debate has become one over semantics. However, this resolution implies that in any debate a word definition leads to semantics which is not true. As I've proved their debates, such as this one, where definitions can be made without fear of a pointless semantics debate. Voters: 1: My opponent never refuted my first contention "C1: Their are many debates that can happen where both people understand the main argument such as scientific debates. People may make word definitions many times just for simple clarification or just to emphasize their point. Many times these an just be used in a way that benefits both people. " Thus my opponent has accepted the idea that their scientific debates where word definitions are easily accepted and can be used just for simple clarification. Thus we see here that the resolution is negated, because in these debates their is no argument over meaning but they just help to explain a term. Further more my opponent argues this is a negative principle, but as I've stated many times these can be used to benefit both debaters. 2. As I've used a definition in this round my opponent has not argued meaning of it in any way. Thus we see that their is no "argument" over meaning, because my opponent has not "argued" the meaning. Hence resolution negated, because a word definition can be made a reference without the debate turning into an "argument" (remember you need two people for an argument), over definition. 3. My opponent has not refuted the idea that their are many debates where definitions are "dropped" and thus their is no actual way for their to be an argument over semantics. Thus by default in these debates their are definitions instantly accepted and no argument over meaning, because the argument remember was "dropped". (easy example of this is LD format) 4. Generally, I understand my opponents point here, and although it may appear to have an actual standpoint; I stand firm behind the belief that we are all not just quibbling children and we can have a proper debate with definitions used only for clarification and little room for arguing. Thus I welcome my opponent to debate. org, I hope she enjoys and she contributes in a positive manner, however for this debate I advise a strong vote for the Con. Thank you.