Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime

"My opponent claims I argued his side, but it was clear that I am for conceal carry, and it appears he is trolling as well.One reason we can assume I am for conceal carry is because both of my parents have the license, I own multiple guns, and any DDOer knows I am against all gun regulations, well most should know that. Also if you look a tmy past debate history you see constant support for the lott mustard data."1. I am a new member to this site (joined today). Thus, I am not familiar with my opponent, nor his parents.2. My opponent should not be lax in wording resolutions in a way that people unfamiliar with his debate history do not understand them."My opponent then claims, without any logic, we can assume pro is for controlling weapons, which is false. The resolution states:"Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime""You can see my logic in my round 2 post, where I compared "concealed carry handgun laws" to "lightbulb changing laws". Obviously, in the absence of concealed carry laws, we are free to concealed carry. So what happens when we introduce "concealed carry handgun laws"? Either nothing changes, or these laws place some kind of restriction on concealed carry. Throughout, my opponent has not even defined "concealed carry handgun laws" while I have, with the only logical definition presented thus far."As I am labeled pro, it is EXTREMELY clear that I am arguing for the resolution, I am PRO conceal handguns reducing crime. My opponent basically uses logic that does not exist nor relate to the resolution."It is clear that my opponent is arguing for the resolution, but he is not PRO "conceal handguns reducing crime". He is PRO "conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime". Concealed handguns are a far cry from laws regarding concealed handguns, and so he is clearly arguing a different resolution."I also clarified with my source page, as many of my sources easily explain my position. Look at this source:Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010. Print.If I was arguing that it raised crime the book "more guns less crime" woudl not be a source."Unfortunately, he introduced this source after the first round, at a time when it is too late to be clarifying his true stance. In fact, I introduced my sources before he introduced his, which (by this "whoever clarifies what they're really arguing first wins" logic) means that I should win. But that's not how debate works. We need to know the bounds of the resolution before the instigator makes them up in the second round by using a certain source."Also, I am the instigator, my opponent thinks he knows more about the debate, when he is a newcomer to DDO and I made the debate myself. Anyone that read the resolution then reads I am pro would logically assume I am arguing that it decreases crime."Yes, my opponent is logically arguing the PRO side of the resolution. I am not that stupid (nor am I new to debate, I have debated team policy debate in high school for several years). However, my opponent says "I am arguing that it [concealed carry handgun laws] decreases crime" without defining "it" in the first place. He fails to define concealed carry handgun laws, expects me to know what they are, and then rejects my reasonable definition in favor of his non-existant definition."he states: "Also, my opponent's failure to provide a concrete definition of the most important term in this round is detrimental to this debate."No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FF - Rule oneOne of the things you will not semanticise is definitions, whether or not who wins my opponents red herring argument, he already auto FF'd/"My arguments are not semantics. I am merely stating that good definitions are neccessary for good debate, and that my opponent has failed to provide good definitions and has rejected the good definition that I provided.Wrapping up, my opponent does not acknowledge that definitions are crucial to debate. Instead, he issues an incredibly vague and ambiguous resolution and clarifies his position in the second round, leaving me in the dark all the while. Vote against vague resolutions, vote against bad debate, and vote against the instigator.