Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed

"Basically at this point, judges, your decision comes down to which definition you prefer. I listed reasons as to why you should prefer my definition in my last speech and a couple more in this round." For one thing, my definition came first. For another, my opponent's definition is not sourced. There was no possible way of knowing that he could use such a definition, because it isn't a real definition. If I were to start a debate, "Pigs can Fly," and my opponent says, "No, pigs can't fly, stupid," and gives a valid definition for "fly," and then I create my own definition for "fly" that meant, "traveling through air," without a source, who should you believe? The other guy. "As I mentioned that this was a debate I had done previously, it wouldn't have been to hard to find the other debate and see in which direction I wanted this to go." You never sourced the other debate. Plus, why have the second debate go in the exact same direction as the first? "Did it have to play out exactly like that? No (obviously, look at this one...), I was expecting someone who could debate a little more imaginatively (no offense to my previous opponent, who did a great job in creating ways in which Humpty could have been murdered)." Pushed and murdered are two entirely different concepts. "If that wasn't enough, I stated in round one 'To avoid semantics...' making it clear that I wasn't looking for a semantical argument to be made." To avoid robbery, I shall ask my neighbor to call the police if he sees anything suspicious happening at my house. My neighbor then robs my house. Just because I try something to avoid being robbed, doesn't mean that I can't get robbed. When you said that you were trying to avoid semantics in that way, that meant that that was your only line of semantical defense. You needed more. "Judges, it rests in your hands. If you accept my definition, my opponent has made no claims against my contention. If you accept my opponent's definition, then continue to read because I'm going to attempt to refute my opponent's case :)" You can't accept my opponent's definition, because that would be definition abuse. Okay, about the wind. If the wind were strong enough to push Humpty over, then he would have indeed been pushed. I'm just trying to cover all the angles here. If Humpty did in fact press his leg against the wall, that would be a very obvious push against the wall, resulting in a push against Humpty. http://nemendur.khi.is... Humpty Dumpty sat on a brick wall. Brick walls don't fall apart because an egg sat on it. "Don't think of this like the ground is pushing back." Newton disagrees with you. "The ground is an inanimate object, and cannot push against with force in order to drive as my opponent's definition states." Newton still disagrees with you. "THAT is how you would 'push' back. Did you actually push? No. You failed miserably, sorry. Haha, but you get my point." A hobo would see that and conclude that you did not push. Isaac Newton would see that and conclude that you must have pushed. Who would you believe? An uneducated hobo, or Isaac Newton, one of the most famous scientists of the current era? http://en.wikipedia.org... "At this point, judges, you can favor my definition, and therefore my contention, which stands uncontested..." Uncontested? It's a definition that you used in Round 2 without sources. In Round 1, that would have been fine. In Round 2, though, that's clear definition abuse. It is contested. It is pushed off of a wall. It is shattered. "...or you can accept my opponent's definition and see that Humpty wasn't pushed at all, only pulled upon my gravity, whether it be do to Humpty's relocation of his center of gravity, or the wall simply crumbling due to Humpty's weight." According to the ever-knowledgeable Isaac Newton: http://www.iit.edu... "Some Practical Applications of Newton's Third Law 1. An athlete executes a high jump by pushing against the earth which, in turn, pushes him/her up in the air." Gravity pulled Humpty downwards. Humpty pushed the ground. By Newton's Third Law, the ground pushed back at Humpty. This is what resulted in his shatter. Technically, something can't shatter without being pushed. A pull isn't enough to shatter anything, until that something collides into something else, in which case, they both push against each other and either one of them or both of them may shatter. If the wall crumbled, then Humpty would have been pushed reciprocally by the bricks, rather than the ground. It's still the same thing. Humpty Dumpty was pushed. Resolution affirmed! Now, who are you going to believe, the uneducated hobo, or Isaac Newton? (HINT: Isaac Newton)