Sea lions are seals

So the only real response to the theory argument Pro gives is that the resolution isn't a truism. His reasoning for why sea lions could not be seals is that there are higher authorities than wikipedia as to what is classified as something and that the fact that people accept this debate shows that there is disagreeement. There's a number of problems with this response:1. Wikipedia cites this very higher source in the scientists that actually study the animals and categorize them according to their characteristics and genetics. You literally cite this majority that you speak of within your case. This makes the resolution a truism.2. Whether or not there is disagreement has literally nothing to do with if something is a truism or not. It doesn't matter if one person or a million people disagree that 1+1=2 because that's literally the truth. This should become self-evident given that the vast majority of these people who you say are "readily accepting" your debates end up either conceding or forfeiting[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9].To also provide context to this, only two debaters attempted to argue the resolution substantively. One lost[10] and the other didn't get votes[11].3. The response you hint at exists outside of the scope of the resolution. The question you ask within the resolution is in the status quo, are sea lions considered seals? The answer to that is yes, that's literally how their characterized. Saying that the characterization of sea lions being seals is incorrect is something one could say, but given that the resolution is asking us a descriptive question (e.g. describe the world around us, describe sea lions relationship with seals, etc.) rather than a prescriptive question (e.g. prescribe how we ought to consider sea lions), the response doesn't actually address the resolution that you specifically created to try and farm wins. Given this, he's clearly violating the theory argument. Apart for the one very quick and poorly articulated response to the violations, he drops literally everything else, including the interpretation, standards, and voters. Since this is the final round of debating, there's literally no chance for him to recover from this game-over mistake. And since I'm definitively showing that he's violating the interpretation, you negate the resolution straight up. Just because I have like....6k characters left, let me make it very crystal clear how he's violating the interpretation. His resolution, as specified in the title and in the R1 is "Sea Lions are Seals". Not only is the resolution descriptive in nature in that it's asking are these two considered to be the same thing, but the arguments he gives in support of it are descriptive in that they describe how scientists categorize seals and sea lions in their specific families and genuses. To be short, it's literally asking the question of "Are sea lions definied as being seals right now" to which the answer is undeniably "yes". This leaves me with zero substantive ground to take to address the resolution. To argue that the classifications are incorrect is to concede that it's currently defined that way in the first place, in which case the resolution is affirmed. Any kind of crazy kritical ground about classifications being harmful or discriminatory do the same thing. There's literally no possible advocacy that I can take to win the debate substantively. Hence, he violates the interpretation.Violating the interpretation is bad because of the outlined reasons in the standards and voters, all of which go dropped. This makes the debate crazy simple to evaluate:Negate off of theory. He literally gives, like, 20 characters of a response to the violation and drops literally everything else. I'm giving you more than enough reasons to believe that the resolution and arguments he's providing are abusive and harmful to debate as an activity, and because of this he should lose, and he hasn't responded to any of it. Not only that, but he's dropped the analysis I give as to why theory has to come first in your evaluation of the round, so there's literally no way that he wins the debate.Sources:[1] - http://www.debate.org...[2] - http://www.debate.org...[3] - http://www.debate.org...[4] - http://www.debate.org...[5] - http://www.debate.org...[6] - http://www.debate.org...[7] - http://www.debate.org...[8] - http://www.debate.org...[9] - http://www.debate.org...[10] - http://www.debate.org...[11] - http://www.debate.org...