The word democracy has multiple definitions.

Well, this is awkward. I have presented a logically coherent case which proves that the word “democracy” has only one definition, and he now wishes to quibble over wether or not I adhered to the definition of the word “definition” that I -out of charity- stipulated to. My general theory is that my opponent misunderstood my argument because he is unfamiliar with conditional reasoning and linguistic analysis. In asking for an affirmative ballot, he is hoping that you are equally unfamiliar with both.PRO gave the following definition for definition, which I agreed to, that establishes two necessary conditions, to sufficiently define a word: (1) “a formal and concise statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc.” and (2) a “specification of the essential properties of something, or of the criteria which uniquely identify it.” In order to prove that democracy has multiple definitions, it should stand to reason that he must offer multiple examples of definitions for the word “democracy” which he categorically didn’t do. He offered multiple meanings for the word, which, although he may esteem them as “individual” definitions, they are merely components of the singular definition of the word “democracy.” My opponent then proceeded to erect a clever straw man of my argument in the previous round, and refute that, rather than actually attack my syllogism.Here it is again:P) Mere meanings of words are not definitions.P) The word “democracy” has multiple meanings.C) The word “democracy” does not have multiple definitions.Dictionaries are unique books, for of all the words they include, they provide only one definition with, comprised of many meanings, that are meant to collectively capture the essential property of the word to be defined. Referring again to the definition that my opponent and I both stipulated to, a definition must specify “the essential properties... of the unique criteria which uniquely identify [the word].” Pay special attention to the word “properties” and notice that it is plural, implying more than one property or unique criteria used to identify the word in question. Thusly described, for the definition of a word to by my opponent’s definition of the word “definition,” it is necessary that a definition describe the multiple properties which identify a word -which a definition does by listing all formally recognized meanings, in a concise way. Although my opponent provided you, the judge, with multiple meanings for the word “democracy” (see his list in round 2), no single meaning is sufficient to define “democracy.” We know that no single meaning is sufficient to define democracy, because my opponent has listed varied meanings which he clearly makes apparent. The sum of those meanings (all of them, together, when assembled such that collectively they capture the essential property of the word) comprise the definition of the word “democracy.I have demonstrated with various theoretical examples (none of which were refuted by my opponent) the substantive differences between meanings and definitions. I have demonstrated that my opponent has offered multiple meanings, rather than definitions, because none of the clauses he listed are individually sufficient to define “democracy,” pursuant to the components of a definition he listed. Because I have shown how my opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof (by not offering multiple definitions), and furthermore because I have satisfied the BOP that my opponent outlined for me in the first round (I have proven that the word democracy has only one definition), the outcome of this incorrigibly semantic debate compels a CON victory. Peace and Love,YYW