Wittgenstein's "beetle-in-the-box" analogy and the Lockean Interpretation of Language

PREFACEThe full resolution is going to be presented here in the opening statement because it did not fit in the title.Full resolution: Wittgenstein's "beetle-in-the-box" analogy establishes a difficulty in the Lockean interpretation of language where such difficulty is only limited to inner objects.In this debate, the burden of proof is only on Pro to prove such resolution, while Con only has to undermine Pro's case to win this debate. I'm taking the Con position on that resolution.DEFINITIONSLockean Interpretation of LanguageThe general interpretation that says that all words denote private or inner objects in our minds. Those objects are defined as words of quasi-sensory introspection that act as inner samples. For instance, when I say the "apples are red," I'm referring to my inner sample of "red."Wittgenstein's Beetle-in-the-box analogyWittgenstein asks us to imagine a community where everyone has a beetle in a box, but where "no one can look into anyone else's box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle[1]." In other words, those people could have different things in their private boxes which they happen to commonly call a "beetle," but such reference does not affect their public usage of the word "beetle," provided that nobody can look inside another person's box to check if the object itself is identical or different than the object they have in their box. Similarly, the same can be said about inner or private ideas which nobody else can directly sense. For instance, people cannot directly sense my private idea of sorrow, but only observe my public behavior in the form of reactions, which could mean that my inner idea could be slightly or significantly different from the particular one they personally have. In conclusion, one's public usage of words is not contingent on one's inner samples.METALeave a comment if you want to take the challenge.Voting period: 2 Weeks.Time to argue: 72 hours.Argument Max: 10,000 characters.Voting system: Select the winner.RULES AND REGULATIONSThis debate is based on the NDRE Lv.1.8 which basically stands for Niqashian Debating Regulations and Etiquette. It is obligatory for my opponent to read the document(http://www.debate.org...) before accepting the challenge. The document is split into two parts, "critical rules" and "etiquette standards."Additional obligatory rulesThe NDRE explains in articles A.1.8 and A.1.9 that the instigator of the debate can present additional rules in his opening statement. Here are my additional rules:R1- No acceptance round. Pro has to start arguing from the first round.R2- Burden of proof is solely on Pro.R3- No Kritiks, and definitions and the resolution must be strictly followed.---Because this debate fits the criteria of article A.1.6 of the NDRE, it makes sense to quote article A.1.6 here:A.1.6 If the initiator of the debate didn't use his first round to argue and allowed the opponent to start without an acceptance round, the opponent must only say "As agreed" in his final round.CITATIONS[1] Ludwig Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" §293.I wish my opponent the best of luck. I'll answer any questions in the comments.