Definitions posted by the Instigator in Round 1 of a debate are more like rules than contentions.

"All comments about me misreading the rule I will give one answer: I'm sorry that I misread read the rule." Apology accepted. "If they think that the instigators definitions were wrong and that the aff was right to debate them, he should get the points." However, how can the definition be wrong? It is really the Instigator's choice what words should define the resolution, because the Instigator is the one who writes the resolution. This means that attacking the definition is really attacking the set meaning of the resolution, which is indisputable, as it is what the rest of the debate is supposed to revolve around, not within. "The point is that it's okay to debate a rule but it's up to the voter to decide if it was necesary." Hmm... I can use this later. "Debating should not have rules though as rules constrict the arguments of the debators." Technically, a debate belongs to the Instigator, and the Instigator comes up with the resolution and sets the rules. If the Instigator wants the debate to be run a certain way, that's fine. If the Instigator sets a rule that the debate must be in LD format, should the Contender be allowed to proceed in a different format? No. Furthermore, my opponent has conceded that an agreement by the Contender with the Instigator's definitions is NOT a contention win at all, which places a huge gap between definitions and contentions. "To restrict one in a debate that requires free speech defeats the whole point of the debate." Usually, the Instigator has both debaters restricted equally. Is a debate that the Instigator restricts to an LD debate still a debate? Yes. The point is not defeated at all. Rules just allow the Instigator to further define what he/she wants out of the debate, and if a person is not willing to comply, then that person should not accept. "I'm just saying that there are times when definitions need to be debated and changed to further help the progress of the debate." Like what? Really, there is no proper time. "The contender should have the right to do this. Although this would probably mean an automic loss for them, it still should be allowed. It is their choice on how to structure their argument and the instigator can't tell them how to do it. It is up to the voter to decide who was right and who was wrong in the debate." Well, rules and definitions can't force the Contender not to do anything, of course, but they can show how the Contender deserves to lose. "Once again, my main point is that in a debate everything CAN be and should be ALLOWED to be contested. Whether they SHOULD be contested is up to the voter in deciding who did better in the debate." Well, then, let's take a look at this: "The point is that it's okay to debate a rule but it's up to the voter to decide if it was necesary." "The contender should have the right to do this. Although this would probably mean an automic loss for them, it still should be allowed." So, debating a rule that is set would probably result in a loss for the Contender by the voters. Debating a set definition would probably result in a loss for the Contender by the voters. Debating a contention would result in victory by the voters for whichever debater can support their ideas the strongest. "Once again, my main point is that in a debate everything CAN be and should be ALLOWED to be contested. Whether they SHOULD be contested is up to the voter in deciding who did better in the debate." True. My opponent has spent his entire argument attacking the power that rules and definitions hold in a debate. However, he has not attacked the main point of the debate, which is a comparison between rules, definitions, and contentions. Ultimately, there is nothing in my opponent's most recent argument that even suggests that there is a difference between rules and definitions. He argues that definitions should be arguable, but then he also argues that rules should be equally arguable. Furthermore, he has ignored some of my examples of why definitions are really more like rules than contentions. So, here's a little fact sheet: Definitions are used by the Instigator in Round 1 to show exactly what he means in his resolution. Definitions allow for the resolution to be simpler. Definitions in the Instigator's Round 1 are rarely, if ever, dropped and/or changed, and usually only with agreement between the Instigator and the Contender. If the Contender protests the definition of a word when the word was already clearly defined by the Instigator in Round 1, then the Contender almost always loses the argument, no questions. If a person does not like a definition in the debate, he/she should not accept that debate. Rules are used by the Instigator in Round 1 to show exactly how the Instigator wishes for the debate to work out. Rules allow for the Instigator to have a little bit of control over the debate, although rules are usually equal in restriction for the Instigator and the Contender; few people would accept a debate that is heavily weighted against the Contender by rules. Rules are only used in Round 1, unless both the Instigator and the Contender agree to either abolish or introduce a new rule into the debate. If the Contender protests a rule that was put into place by the Instigator in Round 1, then the Contender almost always loses the argument, no questions. If a person does not like a rule in the debate, he/she should not accept that debate. Contentions are used by the Instigator in Round 1 to show how the Instigator is going to debate. Contentions can be brought up at any time during a debate, with the exception of the Contender's last round. They are used to affirm or negate a resolution, rather than define it. When the Contender protests that one of the Instigator's contentions is false or invalid or wrong, or anything else, this is perfectly normal. The Contender explains why, and then they debate as normal, which does not happen with rules and definitions. If a person does not like the Instigator's contentions, he/she can post his/her own contentions to counter them, and/or point out flaws in the original contentions. This is perfectly okay. So, definitions and rules are similar in that they are used in Round 1 by the Instigator to show how the debate goes in course and resolution, and it usually takes an agreement to drop or change a definition or rule. They are similar in that when a person disagrees with them, he/she should not accept the debate, rather than argue against them. My opponent offers very few arguments in total, and only tries to shorten the wide gap between the island that contains definitions and rules with the island that holds contentions. However, the gap will always be wider than the gap between definitions and rules. Definitions and rules should "be adheared to most of the time." Contentions, naturally, should always be debated, as contentions are what we debate. In conclusion, because of the many reasons listed above, definitions posted by the Instigator in Round 1 of a debate are more like rules than contentions. Vote PRO. Thanks for this debate, crackofdawn.