The internet is a waste of time

I'll begin by noting that my opponent's last round argument is all based around her flawed definition of productive. In the comments section of this debate, someone asks what definition of productive the instigator intended on using (since it was not included in R1), and in the comments section she responded with: "raising mucus or sputum (as from the bronchi)" First and foremost, this is an abusive definition. Clearly my opponent is trying to win this debate via semantics instead of presenting an actual legitimate argument (that's a shame). Second, this definition was never mentioned in the opening round, meaning I don't have to accept it. Third, Pro seems to believe that definitions or comments in the comment section to this debate are relevant; unfortunately she is far from right -- the definition she presented there has nothing to do with this debate - I don't agree to it - and I don't have to considering I did not accept this debate with that specified definition. Therefore, you can negate Pro's entire last round argument as it revolves around a definition that I don't (and don't have to) agree to. In this debate, Pro and I either have to agree upon a definition -OR- Pro has the burden of explaining why her definition should be used over mine. I didn't notice her flawed and manipulative definition (which she still only mentioned officially in the comments section) until AFTER I wrote my last argument; that's why the only things to be considered and voted upon are the things that are said specifically here in the debate and not the comments section. The definition or 'productive' that I will present (and that I used to argue my R1 point) is: "producing or tending to produce goods and services having exchange value" http://dictionary.reference.com... To support my definition, I'd like to bring up that my opponent's definition has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution at hand, or the internet in general. The internet is not a living thing and thus cannot be expected to produce life forms. Additionally, my opponent's opening argument - the one I agreed to debate - did not mention anything about living entities producing mucus, etc. Instead, all it contained was a note that people who use social networking sites cannot be considered productive. Moreover, even if she wants to cheat and use a contriving definition, you'll note that one absolutely can raise mucus (and her definition is productive = raising mucus) while browsing the internet. In short, my opponent completely failed by (a) not presenting her definition in the opening round; (b) shamelessly trying to present a blatantly manipulative definition of 'productive' and (c) failing to debate properly even according to her own flawed definition. Again, if she defines productive simply as raising mucus or sputum from the bronchi (as she did in the comments section), then she has the burden of proving that people cannot produce mucus while surfing the internet as she argued in the first round. On the contrary, I argue that people can absolutely produce mucus from their bronchi even if they're surfing the internet. Ergo my opponent's argument is entirely wrong in the sense that it argues something entirely different. Her point that the internet is not alive and doesn't have bronchi is completely impertinent to the fact that this debate is about PEOPLE'S production while surfing the internet - not whether the internet itself can be productive or not. As you can see, my opponent completely failed on numerous levels. I have proven that my definition is not only far more legitimate than my opponent's, but also that I can and have won even using her own faulty definition. Not to mention that the resolution - which she has to affirm - is that the internet is a waste of time. So, even if one couldn't produce mucus while surfing the internet (which is false anyhow), she still hasn't explained why not producing mucus makes something a waste of time. Basically, Pro is pwned.