Words do not have objective meaning

While I appreciate and respect my opponent for taking on this difficult topic, I am disappointed that my opponent has forfeited her/his round. This inaction of my opponent means that (s)he either concedes to or drops all of my previous arguments. Judge, please extend all of the arguments I have made in Round One, especially those arguments that state that: (These are simplified versions, or course!) 1. Objectivity does not exist 2. Language is inherently subjective and anthropomorphic 3. Treating words as objective is a manner of self-deception 4. The meaning of words comes from their context, and therefore their interpretation, and are thus subjective and not objective. 5. The notion of objective words is a means by which the powers-that-be maintain their power. 6. The notion of objective words is sexist, racist, homophobic, and anthropocentric. 7. Arguing that words are objective is reinforces these problematic hierarchies. 8. The notion of objective words means that labels are absolute. 9. The notion of objective words leaves no epistemological space for queerness or reconstruction 10. We cannot truly address vegetarianism is words were taken to be objective. 11. Objective words sets up humans as above animals, which allows for the genocide of other species. 12. Objective words reinforces the self/other categories, which foster racism, rape, violence, and environmental destruction, and inhibit humans from helping humans. I will add some further points. While I understand that life gets in the way, I must add some of the problems with forfeiting rounds. 1. It's rude. I have spend a lot of time constructing these arguments, so for someone to simply not contend with them is very disappointing, and possibly a tad disrespectful. This might be reason enough to penalize my opponent. I don't know how you respond to rudeness judge, but if you respond to it negatively this might be something to consider in your final analysis. 2. It's bad for debate. We are not able to come to a more educated understanding of the topic if only one side responds. I will have no idea what my opponent was thinking when (s)he wrote "I accept your challenge." I will have learned virtually nothing. In addition to that, people who read this debate will only witness one side of what ought to be a two-sided issue. Demonstrating two sides to an issue to increase education is what debate is all about, but my opponent has done the opposite of this. Even if my opponent debates next round, I will not be able to respond, so therefore I will not be able to engage in my opponent's opinions. Such a case would not be a debate but a mere coinciding of opinions. Anyone who reads this debate in that case would incorrectly assume that I have no argument against my opponent's case, since I would be unable to respond to it. Thus, because Loveshismom forfeited this round, this can no longer be a debate (since I can't engage in dialogue). Because (s)he has removed the validity of this debate and made this all a waste of time, I believe that you would be justified in voting for me in this debate for that reason alone. 3. It's unfair. My opponent has saved all of his/her arguments until the last round. I will try my best to cover my bases, but if my opponent's argument is not what I expected I will (1) have wasted my time in this second round and (2) be unable to respond to these new arguments. This means that my opponent's entire case will go uncontested in this second round. I beseech the judge to remember that I cannot address those new arguments. Therefore, judge, please penalize my opponent for this unfair strategy or accidental but unfair and unethical advantage. If not, please at least penalize my opponent's last argument since I will be unable to respond to it no matter what. I will now move into my offense a bit more. I propose that the idea of objective words is ethnocentric. Quine and Wittgenstein spend much of their careers pointing out that people have entire schema within their beliefs. By pretending that one schema is objective (that is, words, especially English words), one assumes that one's culture schema is objectively right. This (1) makes dialogue difficult since one is unwilling to change, and (2) makes one's own culture seem superior. In any instance where another's culture conflicts with one's own culture, the idea of the objective validity of one's own cultural schema causes one to reject the other culture's schema. This criticism holds for each and every word in the English language (which is what we are focusing on) and other words in other languages for that matter. In addition, words according to Wittgenstein stem from "language games" based on one's culture. The consequence of this belief is the acknowledgment that all words are wholly separate from objectivity. (See Wittgenstein's book, _On Certainty_.) One of my siblings was kicked out of her/his school for being openly gay. Because the principal's absolutist ideology stemming from her belief in the objective validity of her particular schema concerning "gay," my sibling was taken out of school. My sibling had committed no other "wrong" that admitting to her/his own identity. There was no way that her/his sexual orientation would inhibit her/him from being a leader or succeeding as a student, but the principal, convinced of her/his objective understanding of "gay," put her/him into an epistemological box and sent her/him away from the school. There was no room in the principal's mind for a "gay" person would could also be a "good student" or a "good Christian." This demonstrates the importance of remembering that words are subjective and never objective. As a historical example, it was the belief that one is absolutely (objectively) "right" that caused the Crusades and continues to cause terrorism. It was this ethnocentrism that caused the European colonists to assume that Native Americans were only "savages," which caused massacre, theft, rape, war, and domination. It was the belief that persons of color were "objectively" inferior to whites that made slavery possible. My opponent has not responded to any of these difficulties that I have outlined. This silence is enormously problematic, suggesting that my opponent was unmoved by these societal problems. I encourage you, judge, to break the silence and validate the need for justice in your ballot. I have demonstrated multiple time in multiple ways that all words are never objective, and that this belief can be disastrous and even lead to evil. Additionally, the forfeiting of this key round is rude, will make these posts counter-productive, and will force me to not respond to her/his new arguments. For all of these reasons, please vote in favor of my uncontested arguments.