"Wealthy" is a relative term, rather than an absolute one.

Whether definitions are often "socially" determined is irrelevant to whether a process of logic has to be employed in creating those definitions. The use of logic is the means by which we identify and form concepts from what we perceive in reality. Definitions give you essential characteristics of a concept, and thus follow the process of concept-formation. Example: the definition of a cup tells you precisely what it is. A receptacle for drinking fluid. The definition doesn't include the non-essential characteristics of the cup, such as color, or the material from which it's made. Two corollaries here: A) The process of defining a term consists of identifying the essential characteristics of an existent. As it follows from concept-formation, and requires one to correctly identify something in reality, correct definition requires logic. B) Definitions contain only essential characteristics - general concepts contain the nonessential characteristics. This is where the descriptor/degree difference comes into play. "Con doesn't distinguish between metaphysical presence and quantity implied by the definition..." This is because the strict definition of wealthy deals solely with whether one possesses wealth. Such a definition is proper inasmuch as it only identifies the essential characteristic of a wealthy person - possession of wealth. Even with Pro's definition, the specific degree of wealth isn't an essential characteristic when determining whether a person has a quantity of wealth oversufficient for his needs. He could be over by ten dollars, or ten million. The degree has nothing to do with the descriptor. --- 1. a. I brought up the "white/black" paradigm only to show that the qualities a person possesses don't change when you stand them next to other people. Also: the point of a definition is to list the essential characteristics of the referent. In this case, the characteristic is dark pigmentation. The varying degrees of darkness are nonessential, and are contained within the concept of "black", rather than the definition. This is why definitions must be strict, whereas general concepts can be broad. Finally, I was making the comparison that one isn't "whiter" next to Samuel L. Jackson, nor "blacker" next to Betty White. I wasn't dealing with whether wealth/poverty was like black/white. b. Two shirts are dirty. One has a small splotch of mud, and the other was completely submerged in a puddle of mud. The latter shirt is dirtier than the former, thus possessing a greater degree of dirtiness than the former. This is illustrated by the fact that, in addition to positive forms, we have comparative and superlative forms (dirty, dirtier, dirtiest). Not all absolutes have degrees attached, but it's simply an unrepresentative sample if you cherry-pick a couple of absolutes like death and true black/white, point out that they lack degrees, and use that to characterize all absolute terms. Additionally, there's no vague graduation between "wealthy" and "impoverished" if you actually accept Pro's argument. Per individual, there's a definite level where one's wealth outweighs one's needs, and there's a definite level where one's wealth is unable to cope with even the most basic needs - wealth and poverty, respectively. Between those, there's no graduation, unless you count "breaking even" as a gray area. Beyond breaking even, you're either wealthy because your means exceed your needs, or impoverished because your needs exceed your means. Let me explain something very important - when I refer to absolutes, I'm not exclusively referring to two opposites, like black/white, wealthy/impoverished, and so forth. The only time that absolutes are exclusively opposites is when there is no degree attached to the descriptor (like alive/dead - no degrees there). I'm looking at the LEM, and deciding "wealthy, or not wealthy"? A or ~A. **I'm looking at absolutes not as a "scale" between two extremes, but as the dichotomy of "does X possess this quality, or does X not possess this quality?". No matter what, the question will always be "Is this man wealthy, or is he not wealthy?". There are no third options - this is because the attribute of "wealthy" is an absolute - it is either present, or it isn't.** Finally, steel and oak certainly are solid in an absolute sense. Pro is confusing the definition of solidity (which lists only the essential characteristics, such as being firm, hard, and full) with the nonessential characteristic of degree (how firm, how hard, how full, /how solid/). c. Not once have I back-tracked on my definition. I urge you to look back to the response I posted on this argument in Round 2: "When I say that absolutes aren't contingent on other entities, I mean that in a comparative sense – that one is wealthy in his own right. By your definition, for example, a man who possesses more than enough wealth to fulfill his needs is wealthy. Even if you compare him to Bill Gates or Microsoft (other entities), his status as wealthy does not change." My argument is that something absolute isn't dependent on /comparison/ to other entities or contexts. I am wealthy right now - that doesn't change based on comparison with other entities (Bill Gates) or other contexts (me in hyperinflationary Zimbabwe). Wealth is an objective quality - metaphysical presence of that quantity doesn't require verification from comparative analysis or from irrelevant sets of circumstances. Concerning his sourced definition: I was using what seemed to be the more reliable of the two sources (The Princeton dictionary). His other definition intrinsically defined wealth as a relative quantity; however, that's the subject of the resolution. His appeal to a dictionary in such a case is fallacious, since we're arguing over whether the definition is /legitimate/, not the debater with whom the dictionary agrees. 2. a. Refer to the prior argument on this. b. i) No conflict. In one minute, he may be wealthy. In the next, he may not be. This doesn't violate the LEM, nor is the truth of the former context affected by the fact that, in the latter context, he is no longer wealthy. Other potential circumstances don't affect present circumstances. ii) Whether something is constant is irrelevant to whether it's absolute. I may be alive in one context, and then dead after "transitioning" to another context where I'm murdered; death is no less absolute, however. c/d. Again, absolutes aren't affected by comparison to other entities or to other context. A man is what he is, regardless of what another person is, or what this man might be tomorrow morning. Look next to his presumption that absolutes are exclusively the two extremes (poor/wealthy); however, being not-wealthy doesn't mean you're "poor", by Pro's definition. You could be breaking even. Both poor and breaking even are ~A, so both still fit within the absolute realm of the LEM, inasmuch as the dichotomy remains "wealthy or not wealthy". e. Whether needs are relative (as in, "needing" money for college) or absolute (food, water) is irrelevant to whether a person objectively has a quantity of wealth greater than that which his needs require. 3. He's basing his assertion that wealth is relative on the fact that you can be wealthy in one context, and not in another; however, that only means your status as wealthy can change - not that the attribute itself is relative. In both contexts, you're either wealthy or not wealthy - in either context, it's an absolute quality. Finally, you measure in terms of the positive descriptors. You don't measure height in terms of "shortness", or length in terms of how close to zero something is. This wasn't disputed. As far as A is A: I believe that short is /not very/ tall, and that poor is /not very/ rich. Meaningful if you know what your referents are. Most competitive debate I've had on here. Thank you, feverish.