Definitions posted by the Instigator in Round 1 should be treated more like rules than contentions.

I thank mongeese for starting this debate, and I'm hoping too put my 2 cents onto this topic. It's quite commonly addressed among debaters, and unfortunately there's been a rampant shared belief that definitions should be treated more like rules than contentions. This may very well be the case in a formal debate in which the definitions are supplied beforehand by some official, but in an informal debate among scientists, philosophers, intellectuals, etc. you will notice this is absolutely not the case. And there are very convincing reasons for why. So this is what I'm going to do. I will first present a simple positive argument for why the contender should not enter a debate, then respond accordingly to my opponent's point that may have been left untouched by my first argument. ==================== In many areas of discussion, definitions are the focus of a debate ==================== It would be simply folly to think that conceiving of a definition makes it a foundational focal point for a discussion; if this would be true, then definitions would all be arbitrary and any attempt at an intellectual discourse would be absurd. We find that in many controversial topics that are entertained even on this website, finding the CORRECT definition is key. You may be thinking that it sounds silly that there can be a correct definition (after all, you can decide in your head that cat means dog, bread means poop, etc. ), but if you are seeking the truth then this is feasible. For example, take the abortion debate. The main split happens at the issue of personhood, in which a person is a morally and legally relevant entity. Thus the debate is about two things - what constitutes personhood and does a fetus qualify. The focus would be on what the correct definition of personhood, since supposedly personhood is actualized in the combination of properties, one's nature, etc. The idea of a correct definition would only be suitable if the goal in making a correct definition would be to accurately refer to a corresponding subject - if I want to figure out if a fetus should have rights, then I need to know what type of entity deserves rights to begin with (and what rights themselves are). If someone were to define personhood as the ability to twirl a pencil, then obviously abortion debates would be absurd. In the context of an abortion debate, in which the goal is to find the truth about the moral situation of abortion, using the correct definition is imperative. Arguments over the correct definition/representation/etc. of an idea happens many times in philosophy. As mentioned before, the debate in abortion often centers around one's conception of personhood. In the debate about free will, there is a common struggle between those who support the Leeway model of control and the Source model of control. Accepting one of these models (the two are incompatible obviously) leads to significant consequences for the free will debate. ==================== Responses to several of my opponent's claims ==================== If someone doesn't agree with an instigator's R1 definition, then he can simply accept the debate and attack the definition. Even though this may stray from the topics, this is legitimate and perhaps an even more fundamental point. We don't see anything wrong or unfair if I were to be CON for the proposition "we are morally obligated to help those in need" by arguing moral facts don't exist - this would be hitting a more fundamental point that the resolution likely assumes to be true. Likewise, attacking an opponent's definition is to show his own conceptual understanding of the topic is wrong. In response to your table example, if someone were to offer that definition then you can DEFEND your definition, by pointing to the context of how it was used and showing that your argument was using the definition you proposed and not your opponent's. There is nothing in the idea of not treating definitions as rules that forbides the instigator from defending his definition - indeed this would be encouraged. "So, definitions and rules are similar in that they are used in Round 1 by the Instigator to show how the debate goes in course and resolution, and it usually takes an agreement to drop or change a definition or rule. They are similar in that when a person disagrees with them, he/she should not accept the debate, rather than argue against them unfairly". ----> You hammer on this point, by arguing that many times the contender will abuse definitions by seeing the context of what the instigator is arguing, and warp a critical word. And I agree, this is low. But remember, the instigator CAN and SHOULD defend his own definitions. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent's main point was to show that the contender can and often does abuse the resolution by redefining key words; what he forgets is that the instigator can put the contender back in his place by demonstrating the incompatibility between the debate subject and the re-definition on the contenders' part. Since most topics in a debate deal with finding the truth, having the correct definition should be important.