Words do not have objective meaning

Thanks for the response, Con.Sorry about the spaces.First off, I want to make sure that readers realize that I don't think words are meaningless. I just don't think they are subjective. In fact, I think that a wordview in which words are subjective is a lot more logical and meaningful.Roadmap. I will:1. Address each of my opponent's defense2. Explain how each of my opponents' defesive arguments is invalid3. Go on to briefly review my previous arguments (most of which should flow through uncontested)4. Offer some new explanations of my debate from Quine & Wittgenstein5. Give a personal testimony about how beleiving in objective langauage can be harmful6. Explain why my opponents' bringing up brand new arguments about my first round would be unfair in the final round.Addressing my opponent:My opponent offers three arguments against my position: 1. My argument hinges on words only having one meaning.I am very confused as to why my opponent thinks all of my arguments "hinge" on words having singular meaning. In fact, the opposite is true. I point out in part one (I): "There are 49 definition of "good" in dictionary.com, not including idioms. Obviously, the meaning of the words itself changing in relation to the social context."I strongly believe that words have multiple meanings. My opponent has given an example of a word that has multiple meanings that change depeding on the context. "Might" can mean one thing in one context, while another in another context. I agree wholeheartedly. The very fact that people use context to determine a words' meaning proves that the words themselves do not have inherent meaning but have a meaning that changes depending on the context. This means that PEOPLE MUST interpret "might" based on their subjective ideas about the "right" context.2. My metaphor involving pixels "does not demonstrate that individual words lack objective meaning anymore than individual pixels lack color."This argument seems to be misunderstanding my quote. I was explaining how the fact that there are so many meanings of "good" means that meaning depends on the context, and hence words are not objective (that is, their meaning depends on the person encountering the word).3. My opponent says that my quote The testimony of an "objective person" carries an equal weight to the testimony of a coffee cup demonstrates that I have lost the round, because while my arguments are subjective my opponent's argument is objective. There are a lot of problems with this idea. I think first of all there was a logical step missed somewhere. If I am correct in saying that there can be no objective testimoney, then neither of our testimonies are objective. I have never said that only my words are subjective. I am saying all words are subjective. I have conceeded nothing. I wish to point out again, though, that while I believe my arguments are subjective, I believe they are meaningful, and I think that even though they are subjective (perhaps because they are subjective) voters will vote for me, since my arguments flow through.Dropped Arguments:Far from hinging on the fact that words have one meaning, I actually argue that words have multiple meanings. My opponent did not read my case carefully. Because my opponent did not attack these arguments specifically, they are therefore dropped. (simply saying that my arguments hinge on one thing does not mean they actually do!). Because this is the last round, these dropped arguments must be considered to be conceeded. 1. Objectivity does not exist2. Language is inherently subjective and anthropomorphic3. Treating words as objective is a manner of self-deception4. The meaning of words comes from their context, and therefore their interpretation, and are thus subjective and not objective.5. The notion of objective words is a means by which the powers-that-be maintain their power.6. The notion of objective words is sexist, racist, homophobic, and anthropocentric.7. Arguing that words are objective is reinforces these problematic hierarchies.8. The notion of objective words means that labels are absolute.9. The notion of objective words leaves no epistemological space for queerness or reconstruction10. We cannot truly address vegetarianism is words were taken to be objective.11. Objective words sets up humans as above animals, which allows for the genocide of other species.12. Objective words reinforces the self/other categories, which foster racism, rape, violence, and environmental destruction, and inhibit humans from helping humans.Wittgenstein & QunineI will now move into my offense a bit more. I propose that the idea of objective words is ethnocentric. Quine and Wittgenstein spend much of their careers pointing out that people have entire schema within their beliefs. By pretending that one schema is objective (that is, words, especially English words), one assumes that one's culture schema is objectively right. This (1) makes dialogue difficult since one is unwilling to change, and (2) makes one's own culture seem superior. In any instance where another's culture conflicts with one's own culture, the idea of the objective validity of one's own cultural schema causes one to reject the other culture's schema. This criticism holds for each and every word in the English language (which is what we are focusing on) and other words in other languages for that matter.In addition, words according to Wittgenstein stem from "language games" based on one's culture. The consequence of this belief is the acknowledgment that all words are wholly separate from objectivity. (See Wittgenstein's work, _On Certainty_.)Personal Testimony Concerning the Problems of Objective Language BeliefsOne of my family members was kicked out of her/his school for being openly gay. Because the principal's absolutist ideology stemming from her belief in the objective validity of her particular schema concerning "gay," my sibling was taken out of school. My sibling had committed no other "wrong" that admitting to her/his own identity. There was no way that her/his sexual orientation would inhibit her/him from being a leader or succeeding as a student, but the principal, convinced of her/his objective understanding of "gay," put her/him into an epistemological box and sent her/him away from the school. There was no room in the principal's mind for a "gay" person would could also be a "good student" or a "good Christian." This demonstrates the importance of remembering that words are subjective and never objective.Historical Example of Problems of this mentalitAs a historical example, it was the belief that one is absolutely (objectively) "right" that caused the Crusades and continues to cause terrorism. It was this ethnocentrism that caused the European colonists to assume that Native Americans were only "savages," which caused massacre, theft, rape, war, and domination. It was the belief that persons of color were "objectively" inferior to whites that made slavery possible.Why my opponent's missed arguments ought to be "conceeded"My opponent drops the vast majority of my arguments. If my opponent tries to bring up new points about my old arguments, this would be unfair since I wouldn't be able to answer them. My opponent had plenty of space last round to bring up many more arguments than s/he did. It would be very sneaky to insert some in the round where I can't respond; I'd have wasted this whole round on debating the wrong points. Therefore, the points that my opponent dropped out to be counted as "conceeded."Sources:Wittgenstein, On Certainty