Semantics lovers, this debate is for you

Logical-Master, as you may very well have noticed, forfeited last round. He left a comment claiming that he was sure that he hit 'submit' with 10 seconds or so remaining. Unfortunate for him, I suppose. Perhaps he should have been a little more responsible, and responded with more than 10 seconds to go. That's assuming he even did have 10 seconds to go - he may be lying for your sympathy, having accidentally missed the deadline entirely. In any case, I will be treating this as if L-M did forfeit last round, since that is what the site has told me. Still, in the spirit of good conversation, I'll go ahead and respond to some of his statements made in the comment section. I am responding not because I need to, but because I want to correct some of the more blatant lies L-M is feeding you. Thus, I will only be responding to some of L-M's statements. ==== "Semantics Lovers" L-M supposes that I didn't bring up 'semantics lovers' because I know that I am one. This is false. I did not bring it up because it is unclear to whom L-M is referring. He obviously is not referring solely to the contender [me], since 'semantics lovers' is plural. In other news, I don't really even like semantics, though I am forced to sometimes use semantics on this site. Even so, if I was a semantics lover, I could still not be the 'semantics lovers' referred to in the topic of this discussion. With that said, L-M has still failed to show who he is referring to as 'semantics lovers' and just how this debate is for them. It's not really relevant to our discussion at this point, but what the heck, I'll go ahead and address L-M's claims about me being a semantics lover. He gives two supposed pieces of evidence. === 1. I said 'tempting' in the comment section here. >Note that this has nothing to do with semantics. === 2. I didn't address the 'semantics lovers' part of L-M's claim earlier in the debate. >This is because I didn't need to, and because it was his responsibility to explain what it is he is claiming. I was simply waiting for him to do just that. ==== "This debate" 1. I do think L-M has sufficiently explained why he thinks this is a debate. This discussion could not be called a 'heated' exchange of opposing views, nor is it a _formal_ discussion in a _public_ _meeting_. This poses a problem for both definitions of 'debate.' == D1: "A formal discussion in a public meeting or legislature, in which opposing arguments are presented." a. This discussion is not formal. b. Debate.org is a private website, requiring membership for the use of its services. c. This discussion is not a meeting. Even if L-M and myself are sometimes online at the same time, it is unlikely that we have even once been on this page at the same time. Even so, such a thing is hardly a meeting. I'm sure there has been a time when both myself and L-M were on www.google.com, but it's nonsense to call that a 'meeting.' To be a meeting, we would have to meet each other there. == D2.1: "A heated exchange of diverging or opposite views." a. This discussion is not heated. This is evidenced by the lack of entusiasm from either side. L-M showed so little enthusiasm, he tried to post the previous round 10 seconds less than three days after I posted my last round. I've shown little enthusiasm as well - like L-M points out in his comments, I didn't even point out the problem with the first part of my opponent's claim, "semantics lovers," when I am known for attacking a resolution in every way possible. And since "this debate" is nonexistant, my opponent's claim is quite similar to "Semantics lovers, freckled unicorns from the planet Xiphos are for you." Something cannot 'be for semantics lovers' if that thing cannot even 'be.' For X to be for Y, X must be at all first. Anyway, I guess it's time to wrap this up. Maybe L-M will make it in time to make some closing statements, well as explain just who these mysterious "semantics lovers" are, and why 'this debate,' whatever that is, is for them.