Woman are equal to men

Main argument summarized here: DairyGirl is basically saying throughout her entire R3 that I "twisted the resolution" to outside what it was originally meant for. What I'm going to be saying is that it doesn't matter what you intend the debate for, it's how you manifest that intent inside the debate round. Since DairyGirl refused to do that and chose to make both the topic AND her R1 ambiguous, giving NO interpretation, we have to look to my R1. Her last defense is "context", but then she doesn't give any warrants for that, so you vote CON. Now, the line by line. "My advocacy hasn't changed at all.Round 1: Women are equal to men. Round 2: Reject your interpretation, Women are equal to men." ---She agrees that she does not give an interpretation in her own R1, therefore I HAD to give an interpretation in my own R1, EXTEND ALL MY IMPACTS AND ARGUMENTS FROM R2. "You say i'm a shifting advocacy? Look at yourself." ---NEG can do shifting advocacy any day, because all they have to do is prove the AFF wrong. Oh and by the way, the CON side of a topic doesn't "advocate" anything. Let's say the resolution comes in the form "X". The PRO's job is to say "X is true". Whatever the CON does, all they have to do is say "X is false": which can go from "X is not true" to "X does not exist". I'm saying that this topic is nonsensical because it's obvious that women are not congruent to men. Since you refused to provide definitions in R1 and you refuse to give your own interpretation in R1, we have to look to my own definitions. Sure, you may have never moved from your position in your own mind, but that's standpoint epistimology; we can't read your mind. As for "obviousness", extend all my impacts and arguments from R2. "And you proved my point when you said, "I'll agree, because we're all human and we all have the same worth."" ---Actually, in R1 I said "If the topic was "Women should be treated the same way men are treated" I'll agree, because we're all human and we all have the same worth." Emphasis on IF. "I didn't bother defining because I thought it was more than clear what I was talking about." ---Well that's too bad. Cross-apply and again, extend my arguments on "obviousness". "Except for the fact that it wasn't....." ---Again, "obviousness". "No we definitely don't. You define a word that didn't need to be defined in the context. Then I turn around and re-define it for you with two definitions from the same source. We definitely don't need to look to your definition." ---As for "didn't need to be", again, cross-apply "obviousness". Your redefining bites directly into the shifting advocacy argument which only applies to the PRO. Your claim "we definitely don't need to look at your definition" is unwarranted, and false because my definitions are the only definitions for the round, as redefining after R1 screws up the entire debate. "Already hit both points in this above. There was a context and it more than precedes your definition." ---Notice how she never tells me what the context is. I specifically say that there IS no context, and show to you why because all I see is black text and white background. As for definitions, she can't redefine in R2. I went over that already. Twice. "My ground is the resolution. Thats what I have to use against you in this debate. You simply have to disprove the resolution in some way or another. Except you don't bother trying to do that at all. Instead you attempt to change the resolution. So you take all of my ground (arguing for womans rights and abilities) and take it, under your definition these arguments are now pointless. And then you replace my ground with your new interpretation which would be to prove that men are literally equal to women. Except I can't prove that can I? So guess what.... I now have no ground. You have taken it all." ---Actually, I don't change the resolution AT ALL. Your whole thing about woman's rights and abilities are NOT IN THE RESOLUTION, and NOT IN YOUR R1. I have clearly stated throughout my R2 and now, my R3, how she had all the time in the world to make it clear. Instead, she chose to use up 214 character spaces and 42 woords, and made the resolution five words, and specifically chose those. If she had all those options, and CHOSE TO NOT USE THEM, then it is up to me to redefine in R2. EVEN IF THAT IS NOT TRUE, She NEVER PROVIDES A REASON WHY IT TAKES AWAY GROUND. She merely says "I can't prove that can I?" ONE: SHE NEVER SHOWS WHAT IS AN ABUSIVE ARGUMENT AND JUST CLAIMS THAT MINE IS. TWO: SHE'S JUST COMPLAININ AND MOANIN CAUSE SHE WANTED A FREE WIN AND ISN'T GETTING IT. THREE: ALL ARGUMENTS COME IN THE FORM OF X IS Y AND Y IS Z THEREFORE X IS Z. THE ONLY "ABUSIVE ARGUMENTS" WHICH AREN'T EVEN ARGUMENTS AT ALL, COME IN THE FORM OF "X IS X", WHICH ARE REFLEXIVE STATEMENTS. MY R1 AND CASE WAS NOT A REFLEXIVE STATEMENT. CLARIFICATION: EQUAL MEANS CONGRUENCY, RESOLUTION SAYS MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUAL, THEREFORE I NEGATE. SHE JUST HAS TO DESTROY ONE LINK, AND I'M SORRY IF SHE LACKS TRUE DEBATE SKILLS. AND EVEN IF ALL THAT'S NOT TRUE, her response doesn't take out my original arguments there, and therefore you already negate because ground doesn't matter. "I make a debate talking about women and men being equal within the context and you attempt to change the entire debate." ---How the hell was i supposed to know this was about rights? The only thing I had to look at in R1 was "Woman are equal to men" (which I can already negate based off of not defining which woman and a kritik on woman being capitalized while men is plural and lowercase) and your case, which basically said something about different abilities and male dominance. Your assumption that I would "get it" is taken out by the "obviousness" arg I made in R2. "Debate is about debating and deciding who the better debater is. " ---Which means I should win this round because I called abuse on a procedural violation (shifting advocacy) while you called abuse on a substantive violation. There's no real thing as a substantive violation at all, because all arguments can be taken out one way or another, since they're not reflexive statements. Your argument that "you can't do it" just proves that I'm too good for you and that I should win. "Wrong, it is to debate. Its an exercise in using the mind and intelligence." ---STRAIGHT TURN: You vote for me because I had exercised both our minds well by giving clear arguments for her to respond to, and an interpretation in the resolution when she did not. You don't vote for her on an independent reason: She has poor spelling, made a 5 word resolution, and a 214 character / 42 word R1 with no interpretations and no definitions. "I made the debate. If you wanted to argue something else make your own resolution. @.@ I have the right to make it what I want, you agreed to what I wanted my accepting the debate." ---Already responded to this: She refused to give her own interpretation on it and assume that we can all just figure out what the heck she's saying. If her R1 had defs and interps in it, sure. But this is an argument that doesn't apply. "We can't simply ignore the context of the debate. Ignoring the context makes debate meaningless. Would be like debating the resolution "fish". Without a context it has no meaning." ---But she never provides a context ANYWHERE IN THE RESOLUTION, NOR in her R1, her R2, or R3. So where the hell am I supposed to look? I wouldn't want to "screw up" and "twist things" again now would I? Since I impact better to her own standards of debate better than she does, and since I actually argue the resolution, you NEGATE.