This is what ALL rules should look like, instead of robotic format:

I am sorry I did not realize I was debating Hegel himself, or are you more of a Heidegger? In any case I used the first round for acceptance because you did not lay out an argument, only your position. I believed that to balance the rounds, and make it fair upon you I should use it for acceptance. I am quite disheartened that you never present an argument in the second round either. Also I asked politely if you could use paragraphs, reading your verbiage becomes much easier. I am sorry the above will be the only slight conduct violation I commit. Now to start up, I believe that some analysis on the onus is in order. The maxim reads such: 'semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.' The best translation is: the burden necessarily lies on them who should lay charges/claims. Here my opponent is making the positive claim, for he claims that all rules should be written in a literary manner. It is his burden, and his burden alone to prove this claim. The resolution does not say on balance, or probably, or comparatively it states a de facto maxim. This proposition must now be upheld by the proposition. Even if all my points are refuted unless my opponent gives irrefutable positive analysis, I win. I will not begin my analysis of my Aerogant's "case". In the first round he posts a paragraph where he gives an example of the sort of format he wants to see rules. I do not understand if this is an example, or the argument itself? In any case so long as it is only an example, it is meaningless without a supporting argument. If it is an argument, it is horribly phrased. The first point that I can understand is that humans are creatures which enjoy expressing themselves, and they should express themselves unconditionally and in all cases, even cases where laws are concerned. The simple refutation that I can provide is that humans need to be rational in certain cases. I do not see how my opponent shows the necessity of being expressive everywhere, without this supporting argument his statement is mist. If a rapist feels he wants to express himself by raping someone should he? No, humans are emotional, but the reason that they are difference from animals is because they have a superior rational faculty of the mind. The next argument is about being who you are. I do not get why there is an absolute necessity to be such in legal terms. Should we base the court systems on emotion? Decide who goes to jail on who gave the better speech? Who cried more? No, we should not. Humans can express themselves in a variety of ways, by giving speeches. by writing, by singing et cetera. In the matter of law however the rules should be precise and should not be vague because the wording may be the difference between life and death for a defendant. The next round provides no argument, so I have nothing to rebut. I will however provide (because of the debate level) one positive argument: that ambiguity may cause great harm. Lets start with a case: Raffles v. Wichelhaus, one which is known to nearly every law student. Now this case involved the buyer buying cotton which was to be imported from India. The cotton was to be brought to England via a ship named 'Peerless'. Now there are two ships with that name, one was to bring the cargo in October, the other in December. The buyer thought his cargo was to come in the October ship, the manager thought the December one was being mentioned.[1] This was a small ambiguity, but it caused so much hassle and mess. It led to a lengthy trial and great amounts of money was wasted. This because of a simple ambiguity in one clause. Now imagine the contract had been written like this: Of the ship it carries thee, works of yarn less evolved, being upon the moon of ere, shall I deliver unto your arms. Not only was that horrible poetry from my side, should this have been the contract I am sure that a hundred different interpretations could be made, that means that a court would spend years trying to figure out what this meant. Defendant lawyers would contextualize everything, and the world would go to chaos. Therefore for these reasons I negate the resolution. The resolution collapses miserably. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://idiom.ucsd.edu... [3]http://www.legalmatch.com... [4]http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com... [5]https://www.google.com.pk... Faithfully Yours, Ajab.