Semantics lovers, this debate is for you

==== Logical Master said. . . > First, I would like to point out that I am in complete acceptance of the contender's definitions. I say. . . >Alright. I will remember that. ==== Logical-Master said. . . >Even if I am to agree with the notion that the resolution is meaningless, this does nothing to assure victory for the contender and his conclusion is merely nothing more than usage of the non sequitur fallacy. Let us keep in mind that "this debate" meaning nothing can make the resolution appear as if it is saying "Semantics lovers, nothing is for you." I say. . . >It is like telling a person "you enjoy unicorn stew." That's a positive claim, and it cannot be true unless that person truly enjoys unicorn stew. If that person does not enjoy anything, the fact that unicorn stew does not exist does not make the claim true. In fact, the claim is false as a rule, since it is impossible to enjoy unicorn stew. In this same way, 'this debate' can't be for semantics lovers if 'this debate' doesn't exist, since it is a positive claim that relies on the existence of 'this debate' and that it is for semantics lovers. ==== Logical-Master said. . . >Given that my opponent is a semantics lover and that he came into this debate knowingly getting nothing, I'd say CON has only proven the resolution true and has hence won me the debate. I say. . . >Ha...! I'm not sure where Logical-Master is getting his information, but I don't love semantics. ==== Logical-Master said. . . >"[Quote from me]. The first definition makes plenty of sense (contrary to the words of CON). This is technically a public meeting between us (one which we are presenting opposing arguments) given that this website is accessible to public and can be seen by the public which is the residents of debate.org. I say. . . >I think L-M may have misunderstood me. I was simply pointing out that the first definition of argument made no sense when applied to the use of 'argument' in the first definition of debate. That's a fact my L-M has agreed with me on. I defined Debate as using the second definition of argument in its first definition, and using the first definintion in its second. As my opponent said. . . [> First, I would like to point out that I am in complete acceptance of the contender's definitions." > It seems L-M is not disagreeing with my definition in this statement, he is simply trying to say that this is a debate by the first definition: "A formal discussion in a public meeting or legislature, in which opposing arguments are presented." First, our discussion is not formal, it is casual. We can speak to one another however we wish, in however unorganized a manner we wish. Second, we're hardly meeting. If we were meeting, we'd actually be here at the same time, rather than several hours, if not days, apart. ==== Logical-Master said. . . >[Definition 2.2 applies for debate, and can be applied to this discussion...] Basically, this goes to show that AFF statements can be considered as being "the" debate. I say. . . >Though I've explained why I think that's unlikely to be true, you may be right there. I suppose people can believe whatever definitions seem best to them [2.1 or 2.2, though it's unlikely definition 2 was meant to mean both]. Still, I'd suggest L-M attempt to show why the AFF statements in this discussion are for semantics lovers. Let me remind you of this remark he gave in round 1, and his opening remark of round 2. R1: "I believe that the topic is clear and thus see no need to define it." R2: "First, I would like to point out that I am in complete acceptance of the contender's definitions." That's hardly the type of stuff semantics lovers should enjoy. And with that, I'll come back in a few days to check on this discussion, see if L-M's leaves me anything while I'm not around.