Gift Returning

As a simple reminder to my opponent, the final round is reserved entirely for rebutting. I'd also like to thank my opponent for a rejuvenating debate. Now, to the rebuttals.Representation Versus Symbolism"Perhaps you can explain the difference or inconsistency between calling something 'symbolism' and calling it a 'representation' ?"They are rather synonymous, as you claim in the following sentence, but this is a Contextomy Fallacy.[1] Con is purposely taking what I'm saying and putting it out of context to make it appear as though I'm being unreasonable. I was saying that it's inconsistent because Con was saying that the object is the symbolism. Following that, Con says that it's a representation. That's seemingly the intended effect, as Con is arguing that the materials not be returned.If the object is accepted as a constant in that it is the symbol, then it's not merely a representation. It is the actual entity. The "real deal." The "legit sh*t." I'm not quite sure how many other ways I can word it so that my opponent may understand. So, it seems to denote two things, according to my opponent's representation of my definition.I was showing that the line that was being implied was between what we perceive as the material world and the nonmaterial/sentimental world. I then argued that my opponent's argument had some inconsistency in the authority implied within the sentimental world, with who can assign things to whom. He ranked both the receiver and gifter as "only human." Being that they are supposedly of the same authority, why is it that "you can't...reassign the meaning?" What I mean to convey is, the meaning was apparently already existent. In fact, in Round 2, I believe that my opponent defined the confines of the meaning. To show that the gifter "spent more than just money on the recipient." To show that the gifter "spent thought in contemplation of the person." Okay, so that's apparently established.So that means that my opponent is saying that the meaning was already assigned. It was simply reassigned by the gifter. If this is not what Con is saying, I'd like Con to elaborate on what all those quotes actually meant, without adding any new arguments. Simply correcting his own. If I am correct in what Con is saying, then it seems that there's an intrinsic value to what Con is saying despite what one would think: Gifts are acceptable to return if the meaning is reassigned. So, in summarization, gifts are acceptable to return, which is my argument.Semantics Abuse"The subject matter, which he suggested, has taken a backseat to semantics..."My opponent is saying that I've actually not been arguing as much in terms of reason as I have been in terms of terms. It can be considered rather negligible, being that there's always the option of me saying "You too!" or "You started it!" But, to be a fair opponent to my Contender, I will look at how Con believes I am abusing semantics to support my argument more than reason.First, it apparently seems that he believes I'm doing so through my successes to "capitalise the words common sense,"* because it implies that I don't believe its definition is "the sense most commonly shared by people." This is, of course, not true. I do believe this is the definition. However, we're speaking hypothetically, which is something my opponent seems to be failing to understand.Also, my opponent believes I'm abusing the term "gift." He's saying that because most people would not consider a bomb a gift, it cannot be a gift, despite the authority of the gifter to assign a meaning. It does provoke one to wonder, if not just anything can be considered a gift, then what rules something a gift? This isn't a new argument, simply to clarify. This is something I brought up in Round 2. I'm using it now to rebut Con. If a bomb is no longer on the list, it seems like we're not using the "One man's trash is another man's treasure" logic. We can only gift things that the majority of society deems fit. Or at least "100 people." Of course, that's probably just a sample data pool. But, in this data pool, it's not just the majority that has to approve. It's everyone. Nobody can disapprove. It must be made sure that a disapproving label "would never be applied to it." Well, let's face it. That's absolutely impossible. Even a "box wrapped in wrapping paper with a bow on top" would sometimes be disapproved by one of the seven billion people on this planet. If we need one whole percent, it's still unrealistic to say that it won't happen.It's unfair to say that my Reductio ad absurdum argument is invalid simply because the gift I presented for the hypothetical situation is something that most would not consider a gift, as that is the point of my argument. I made it absurd so that people could see that there were definitely confines for something to be a gift and for something to be returned and not returned and such. Then, I deconstructed those perceived rules and pointed out contradictions and flaws. That's the point. That's the purpose.Finally...F*cking Rhetorical Devices! (How Do They Work!?)A significant part of literature./One may wonder: how does it work?/You use rhetoric when you argue!/So you've probably "employed" one too!/My opponent keeps pointing out how I've deployed, or rather, "employed" several rhetorical devices. Very observant. But this is a debate. We are supposed to use rhetorical devices. It's very redundant to point out rhetorical devices."Hey! That Chess player is 'employing' a strategy! She's planning ahead! I'm calling her out on it!"That's...the point...[1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...*I'd just like to say that the sentence following that, my opponent implies that only nouns may be capitalized, and reasons that that means Common Sense cannot be capitalized because it is not a noun. It's a noun. It's not an adjective. It's not a verb. It's a noun. This hasn't much to do with the argument, it just bothered the hell out of me. That is all. Almost.Lastly, so I may end my arguments and rebuttals of all my rounds on a positive note, I'd like to commend the spelling and grammar of my opponent. It's not often I debate people who appear as fluent and educated in a way such as my opponent. Thank you very much. That is actually all.