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

Thank you, TheSkeptic, for your response. I would first like to note that my opponent has not responded to my contentions regarding fairness. "In many areas of discussion, definitions are the focus of a debate. " My opponent assumes that if definitions were established as rules, then any attempt at debate would be absurd. However, people would rather quickly realize which types of definitions people are willing to debate over and which ones people are not. Nobody would attempt a debate in which "cat" means "dog," as nobody would be willing to accept, and if anybody would accept, then who are we to stand in that person's way? Additionally, my opponent tries to establish the existence of a "correct" definition. However, a definition is merely an interpretation of a word, and who better knows the intended definitions of the Instigator than the Instigator himself? If the Instigator declares that the debate will assume "Link" to refer to a video game character rather than a connection between two things, that is really not arguable, and therefore cannot be a contention. My opponent brings up abortion, and the definition of personhood. However, if the Instigator chooses to define personhood in a way that is biased towards the Instigator, then the people can boycott the Instigator until the Instigator declares that the definition will be up for debate. Or, the Contender could point out that as the Instigator's definition of personhood is not the same as the definition of personhood typically used, the Instigator's definition of personhood has no legal or moral relevance, leaving the Instigator needing to defend the notion that his definition has legal or moral relevance. In this way, the definition is still a rule, but it becomes a question of whether or not it is a very relevant one. My opponent states that if personhood were defined as the ability to twirl a pencil, then that abortion debate would be absurd. However, because that debate would be absurd (although the Contender would point out that the Instigator's definition of personhood loses all moral and legal significance, and can thus be ignored), personhood would not be defined in such a way, unless the Instigator wants an absurd debate, in which case, who are we to stop him? My opponent also brings up free will, and two different models of control, the Leeway model and the Source model. However, there's really no issue here. If the Instigator defines free will as the Source model, then the debate is obviously going to be about whether or not the Source model is correct, and if the Leeway model is used, then the debate centers on the Leeway model. There really isn't any way for the Instigator to abuse definitions in a debate about free will without any obvious need to boycott. If my opponent can conceive one, then he should post it. "Responses to several of my opponent's claims" My opponent advocates attacking definitions. However, he does this under the impression that it can show the Instigator's definition to be wrong, although the Instigator's definitions cannot be wrong. Definitions are merely statements to explain what words mean. If the Instigator's resolution is "Xebo qwui kazing," and he posts the following definitions: Xebo - Global warming qwui - is not kazing - real . .. then the resolution has been defined, and there's nothing more to it. He has interpreted the resolution as he has typed it, and that's the end of it. There is no wrong definition. I would like my opponent to explain a situation in which there is a "wrong" definition. As for the table example, and defending, there is a slight problem. If the Instigator made an opening argument about table making, then such a definition would be rather easy to defend. However, if he does not make an opening argument, sure that his definition would be enough to clarify his intentions (as is the case in numerous debates in DDO), then there's no argument that can support the furniture definition as opposed to the data definition, with the exception of the idea that the Instigator's definition is already consented to, and therefore taken as a rule. Additionally, many times, two different definitions can play into the same context, leaving again a tie unless the Instigator is given a trump. With no context, we have to rely on the idea that the Instigator's definition trumps. Finally, if a definition cannot be wrong, then there is still no reason for the Contender's definition to ever trump the Instigator's in the first place. Conclusion analysis: My opponent relies on the debate subject being used by the Instigator to trump the Contender's definition, but this relies on an established debate subject, which cannot solve everything, given sometimes a lack of a debate subject, and sometimes a debate subject that can go with multiple definitions. My opponent advocates correct definitions, but definitions are not correct or incorrect. Definitions simply cannot be flawed. When the Instigator starts the debate, "Free will exists," and defines free will as "the ability of people to make choices not entirely determined by external factors," then the debate might as well read "The ability of people to make choices not entirely determined by external factors exists. " There may be other definitions of free will, but it's pretty clear what the Instigator is talking about. I would like to remind everybody again that my opponent has dropped my arguments about fairness, just in case you've forgotten. In this round, I would appreciate it if my opponent would demonstrate some more detailed examples in which redefining a word would be justified, although it would be best to remember that we are not really discussing extreme examples (like my exaggerated Xebo example).