Semantics Debate: Sports cars are better than Smart Cars

Pro's accusation is unfounded. I have adhered to Pro's rules.1) Pro claims to have stated in his first post that round 1 was "solely for acceptance". I ask the readers to scroll up and read Pro's original post."Acceptance", according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, simply means to "agree to the offer of another" [1]. It does not mean you cannot do anything afterwards. During round 1, nowhere have you specified "acceptance ONLY". I have every right and reason to believe I can post my definitions.2) Pro seems a little confused as to what a "Semantic Argument" is. A "Semantic Argument" is a "dispute over whether a claim is true or not based on the words essential in formulating that claim."[2]. I have not argued against your definition based on the WORDS you used to formulate the definition, I have argued against your definition based on the SOURCE you've used. Therefore, I have not made a semantic argument. Defining "Better" is not a semantic argument either.Now that it's obvious that I have broken no rules and that conduct points should still go to con, I would like to point out that Google's dictionary definition is invalid. Google's entry is thus-"The Smart Fortwo is a rear-engined two-seater microcar manufactured by Smart GmbH, introduced at the 1998 Paris Motor Show as the Smart City Coupe, and currently in its second generation."Since the term "Smart ForTwo" was used rather than "Smart Car", Pro's definition is invalid and my definition still stands. I win if my definition still stands.Why do I win if my definition is considered valid?My definition of Smart Car is "A car with advanced electronics". This definition is broad enough so that it encompasses sports cars, a Smart Car, by my definition, can be a sports car as well. However, since a sports car is always "built for speed and performance", it cannot be everything a Smart Car can be. In that sense, a Smart Car will always be "of superior quality or excellence" than a sports car, and is therefore better.===Rebuttals===Technically, I don't need to do these until Pro knocks down my definition. However, for a safety measure-1. Gas mileage"Attractive", according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, means "arousing interest or pleasure" [3]. Surely such the high fuel efficiency rate of Smart Cars would attract interest and the money saved would arouse pleasure. Also, my opponent is incorrect in saying that the Honda Civic CRX is a sports car, it's actually a "sports compact" [4]. Therefore, the Smart ForTwo is still better than a sports car in terms of gas efficiency.2. AffordabilityAffordability is also attractive. And the CRX is not a sports car, so it is not a valid example. The Smart ForTwo is more affordable than a sports car.3. Environmental impactI will concede this point because I have not phrased it well. However, I don't think I'll need it as my above two points and the validity of my definition is already enough to prove that Smart Cars are better than sports cars for the majority of people.The resolution is negated, I have not broken Pro's rules. Vote Con for arguments and conduct.===Sources===[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...