Everything is debatable

I sincerely apologize for the forfeit. I just logged on today for the first time in a few days. I'm going to suggest right now that you vote for my opponent. I failed to address his case, and it's not very fair for me to all of a sudden do so this round. That said, that is exactly what I am going to do. Here's what my round two would have looked like [roughly], had I been present. 1. "Black is the same as white" RE: "What if I have eyes that don't see as regular human eyes do and Black as you say is exactly the same as white just as we have a name for those things, ISOMERS." As my opponent shows, the only debatable-ness here comes from a lack of definitions. Building definitions into the resolution fixes this. Since black is the absence of elctromagnetic radiation within a certain frequency range, and white is a particular combination of a non-absence of this same radiation... Since I don't feel like looking up real values, we will call the lower bound of the visible light spectrum "A" and the upper bound will be "B." We'll call a specific frequency distribution that creates white "C." We can now change the 'non-debatable' resolution to this: "An absence of electromagnetic radiation between frequencies A and B is the same as electromagnetic radiation defined by C." Note that I have already given one thing that cannot be debated [that is to say, there is only one position from which valid arguments can be made - in this case, the affirmative]. I will go on to defend my other R1 statements in the same fashion, though. 2. "The sun is the closest star to the earth." RE: "How do you know that there is an undiscovered star closer than the sun?" If we define star as requiring a certain size and heat output, then we can see from direct observation that there is no undiscovered star closer to earth than the sun. As I did with the first example, we could construct a more precisely-worded statement. In the same vein, here's another topic that isn't debatable: "The earth is a star." Because of how earth and star are defined, this is simply not true. There are required attributes of a star [size, chemical makeup, etc] that the earth does not meet. 3. "A day is longer than one second." RE: "What if I was trapped in a time vortex and no time existed, then that is not applicable." If no time existed, then neither days nor seconds exist in your vortex. Therefore, saying a day is longer than a second does not create a contradiction in this case. It is like trying to disprove "Midgets are smaller than ordinary adults," by pointing out that neither exist within a certain room. That's a complete non sequitur, not a valid argument. For 100 dollars to be more than 1 dollar, there does not have to be money existing in every location in the universe. Throwing non sequiturs is not a form of debating a subject, it's a form of failing to do so. 4. "A table is a table." RE: "Again what if I has genetically mutated eyes or was from long ago or was from somewhere else and that was not a table?" I don't even know what you're talking about. If you're saying that some criteria exist in said thing that make it not a table, then it has absolutely nothing to do with 'a table is a table.' Rather, you'd be arguing that a non-table is a non-table, which is also true. While true, stating that a non-table is not a table does not constitute arguing the example I gave. Here's the example in more abstract terms. Let us say that there is some boolean condition: that is to say, something that is either true or false. This condition is either true or false. Claim: "If that condition is true, that condition is true." Arguing that that condition is false does not address the claim. It is a complete non-sequitur, and a failure to debate the topic. 5. If all cars are automobiles, and all automobiles are vehicles, all cars are vehicles RE: "How do you know all cars are automobiles?" Because it is explicitly stated in the syllogism. Arguing about whether cars are automobiles is not addressing the topic. The topic is "IF all cars are automobiles...," not "All cars are automobiles." The topic did not claim that all cars indeed were automobiles. Though, on a side note, they are, since cars are by definition automobiles. 6. It is an absolute truth that no absolute truths exist. RE: "What about if someone states a statement, that is absolute truth." How? I just drank five liters of poison. I just stated that, but it is not an absolute truth. Even so, that has nothing to do with the topic I gave. "It is an absolute truth that no absolute truths exist" is a contradiction. Given the inherent logical incorrectness of the statement, there are no actual arguments for the affirmative, and therefore no way to debate it. 7. "People can drown." RE: "What if we lived underwater then can people drown?" That's a complete non-sequitur, given that we don't live underwater. Person 1: "1+1=2" Person 2: "BUT WHAT IF IT DIDN'T?" That does not constitute an argument about whether 1+1 really equals 2. Person 2 has not introduced any argument even suggesting that 1+1 doesn't equal 2. He's not even necessarily disagreeing with person 1. Sorry about the lack of organization, but due to the fact that I have suggested people vote for my opponent, I decided not to put _too_ much effort into this.