Semantical arguments are, in general, just.

Welcome to the site, KritiKal. The Instigator is the person who starts the debate. The Contender is the person who accepts the debate. My first comment appears in your second observation. "Thus, the negative only needs to disprove in one circumstance and you would rightfully negate. (these are his definitions, not mine, we both accept this standard.)" Wrong. "In general," or "for the most part," means that I have to show that at least half of all semantical arguments are just. One counterexample will not be enough. "III. This debate is a debate on how debate should be operated, thus the calculus you use to determine the victor is one of which side better proves that semantical arguments invalidate or uphold the general principles of debate, or intellectual discourse on the whole. Obviously I don't 'deserve' an argument that is abusive, or destroys the purpose that debate was built upon." A man who does not bother to lock his doors deserves to be robbed, to teach him that he is foolish. "We'll start at scenario one. Note that this scenario simply means the resolution CAN be abused, he doesn't define that the resolution IS abused, so don't let him draw that conclusion later on. Moreover, any resolution CAN be abused insofar as i[sic] can define any resolution to say something else entirely." Your elephant example is unrealistic. It never happens on this site. Furthermore, the argument is only semantical if the Contender uses the "abusability" of the resolution. If he never uses it, it isn't semantical. "Then there is clear abuse there. So this means we can extend his definition of semantical to every single resolution." Wrong. If the Contender doesn't use the semantics, then his argument isn't semantical. Furthermore, semantical arguments usually involve sourcing new definitions. Defining "just" as "animals" does not happen here. "1: The framer who creates the resolution creates the world in which that resolution exists..." When the Contender accepts the debate, he has a share in this world, as well. If the Instigator does not define anything, that's just asking for the Contender to do it for him. The framer created a world in which he did not give definitions. This leaves the Contender to add his own. "2: Moreover, the framer obviously goes into the round with the mentality to debate what he has chosen..." Your example is ridiculous. High School Policy and alternative energy aren't linkable through definition. Semantical arguments use real definitions to their advantage. They take, "Humpty Dumpty was Pushed," and change it to, "The Force Known as Push in Physics Acted Upon Humpty Dumpty," not, "Cheese Tastes Good." Again, this is about general semantical arguments. "3: Even if my opponent disproves the abuse I spell out in 1/2, he still needs to prove that the restructuring of the resolution is DESERVED." A man who leaves his house unlocked deserves to be robbed. If a man starts a debate, and there is a man who can defeat him semantically, then the first man deserves to lose the debate, because there is a man who can beat him. Therefore, he deserves what he did not bother to prepare for. "Next, let's note that there is NO BRIGHTLINE on what 'ill-defined' or 'failed to define' means, some resolutions are just pretty intuitively understood." "Failed to define" means that he forgot to bother with definitions. "Ill-defined" means that he uses definitions that need to be further defined by the Contender. That's a pretty bright line in my mind. And in the mind of most debaters. My opponent thinks there is a link between alternative energy and high school policy. If he can prove this with viable definitions, then sure, there's a link. However, I doubt that he can. "I don't understand why a resolution necessitates that it is defined when it is clearly understood..." Words quite often have multiple meanings. You might intend for one meaning, but realize that another meaning would set you up for defeat. Therefore, you mention what definition you intend to use. A resolution that only has one possible implication cannot be "semanticized" against. "3: Resolutions that are intuitively understood are either..." They're still necessary. There are many definitions for "great," each with their own implications. You need to choose one to avoid having a Contender that misunderstood and genuinely thought that you were arguing a different "great." "The only way his position has any legitimacy is if: 1: The resolution is already semantically abused by the framer." Huh? By my definition of a semantical argument, only the Contender can use semantics. The only part an Instigator plays is when he fails to defend against semantics. In that case, he does deserve semantics. Otherwise, a semantical argument is never used against him, and therefore, the debate becomes irrelevant to this debate. "1: by not accepting the debate, we make a statement that abusive arguments ARE NOT OKAY, thus we work to destroy their existence." Irrelevant. Instigators can't make semantical arguments. "2: if we were to accept the debate, the statement would be the converse..." I don't even understand what you just said. What debate are you talking about, here? "In the second circumstance, as the contender in the debate you can simply read the framer's case and deduce his interpretation of the resolution from that point on..." Why? Usually, a semantical argument stems from the lack of an opening argument by the Instigator. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... In all of these, my opponent did not open up with an argument, automatically exposing it to semantics. "Either way, even if semantics arguments are legitimate arguments, I don't see them being 'DESERVED' in debate." I will now explain: 1. If a man does not bother to defend against something, he deserves to be attacked by it, to teach him not to be so ignorant as to not acknowledge it. 2. If a man starts a debate, and there exists a man who can accept the debate and defeat the first man semantically, then that man deserved to lose. Therefore, he deserved the argument used against him. Therefore, he deserved the semantical argument. Therefore, the semantical argument was just. This is what usually happens with semantical arguments, so it is general. Therefore, semantical arguments are, in general, just, and the resolution is affirmed. I await your contentions. Just don't try to pull anything stupid.