Semantical arguments are, in general, just.

Okay, my opponent is clearly missing something. In general, semantical arguers do NOT make extreme changes to the resolution without definitions. In general, semantical arguers accept a debate in which the Instigator failed to give an opening speech, so the Contender can take the debate in a different direction with semantics. "Irrelevant. You don't specify that as a necessary condition of semantical arguments to occur. Stop creating new framework rules, that's unfair. " You will never see a semantical argument without the Contender using real definitions. In general, the semantical argument will include sourced definitions, not un-sourced definitions. "In general" means that it is, for the most part, just. Saying that there are a few situations that would never happen in which it isn't just doesn't work. "Do you want to go ahead and redefine your position altogether? This is blatant abuse. " Redefine? No. However, you're missing the point here. There are far more semantical arguments that use sourced definitions than ones that don't. Where would these semantical arguments involving Instigator and Contender occur besides Debate. org? "Perhaps the resolution actually says, "The holocaust is good! " well then OF COURSE you vote for me. " Can you link my resolution to "The holocaust is good! "? ". .. he makes an assertion that the contender is allowed to restructure the world the framer gives, but that's just an assertion. I can choose to buy a Saab or a Jeep, but I am nowhere empowered once I buy a Saab to protest their use of a particular model type. " Debates are different from economic transactions. In economic transactions, both members cooperate. This doesn't hold true in debate. "He says the framer didn't give definition, but that's not this particular scenario so you can IGNORE his refutation. " In general, that's what happens in the case of a semantical argument. " he MISSES THE IMPACT. I tell you that it is abusive because semantical arguments VOID THE ENTIRE FIRST SPEECH, thus giving an unfair amount of argumentation to the negative. HE IGNORES THIS, carry it through. " My opponent cites unrealistic examples that, in general, don't ever happen. By the "in general," it becomes irrelevant. "That avoids the impact entirely. The point is, you change the intent of the resolution which steals it away from it's[sic] original purpose, unfair to the instigator. His argument is irrelevant. " You claim that there are semantical arguments that don't use sourced definitions. Prove it. "I already established that that form of rebuttal doesn't work, he's changing his definition. " I'm not changing the definition. You're just thinking about what isn't there. Most semantical arguments involve the Instigator leaving no opening speech, and the Contender accepting and introducing new, SOURCED definitions. "3: There is no reason that 'The force known as push in physics. .. ' scenario is any different from the 'Alternative energy to health care' scenario. Either way, you are changing the debate and invalidating the instigator's position. " One is sane. The other isn't. One has happened. The other never will. There are two huge differences, right there. "I was just saying some resolutions are intuitively understood and do not warrant definitions. I give the high school policy resolution as an example. " High school policy. There are a lot of things that could be called high school policy. What about their lunch policy? What about their finals policy? Wikipedia doesn't even have a high school policy page. That's far too vague for most people to understand. ". .. where exactly do you say that. " My definition clearly states that the Contender uses the Instigator's failure to take steps against semantics to use semantics. The Contender is the one that uses semantics. It's in the definition. Besides the mentioning of Debate. org and sourced definitions (which do, in general, exist for a semantical argument), they ARE the same definition. "In the hundred of debate. org debates that utilize semantics, I DOUBT that you empirically conclude that 'usually' this occurs. This isn't a sound argument, it's fallacious in nature. Because one example (or three! ) exists, it doesn't mean MOST circumstances in which semantics are utilized is where the instigator fails to define. " I showed three debates for my case. Can you show three debates against my case? I'll provide even more: . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... Now you need six examples to prove me wrong. "This argument is only justified if the 1st is, and the first isn't so whatever. " Wrong. This argument is independent from the first argument. It is an argument about debate. My point #2 went unchallenged. It has been conceded. "2. If a man starts a debate, and there exists a man who can accept the debate and defeat the first man semantically, then that man deserved to lose. Therefore, he deserved the argument used against him. Therefore, he deserved the semantical argument. Therefore, the semantical argument was just. This is what usually happens with semantical arguments, so it is general. " "1: Mongeese's framework is abusive, he constantly redefines to avoid my arguments. Don't let him do that, he is trying to void my case by simply changing his position. " Wrong. My opponent uses examples that cannot happen. They obviously don't apply. "2: He only asserts what 'deserved' is, but he can't justify that, it doesn't make sense. " Point 2 went unchallenged. .. "3/4: My issues w/ abuse that i[sic] outline in my case of semantics args[sic] (out of room, can't elaborate)" Most semantical arguments involve the Instigator failing to do anything except start the debate, allowing the Contender to have almost full control over the debate, provided he use sources. AFFIRM My opponent uses ridiculous examples that don't happen. "2. If a man starts a debate, and there exists a man who can accept the debate and defeat the first man semantically, then that man deserved to lose. Therefore, he deserved the argument used against him. Therefore, he deserved the semantical argument. Therefore, the semantical argument was just. This is what usually happens with semantical arguments, so it is general. Therefore, semantical arguments are, in general, just, and the resolution is affirmed. " This point was attacked falsely, because it had no connection to Point 1. Therefore, it is conceded. The resolution is conceded and affirmed.