Semantical arguments are, in general, just.

We'll go line by line. "Wrong. "In general," or "for the most part," means that I have to show that at least half of all semantical arguments are just. One counterexample will not be enough." At least half is not "the MOST part" because it would be "the EQUAL part", thus you must prove >50%, or that in both circumstances you outline in your definition of semantical (one where there could potentially be abuse, and one where the resolution isn't defined) semantical arguments MUST be just. "A man who does not bother to lock his doors deserves to be robbed, to teach him that he is foolish." I don't understand the evaluative standard you use to make that claim. That's an assertion, please justify that or you can drop it. Moreover, you don't even refute the explanation I give you - that we're debating debate theory in the round, and thus use that as our calculus - so you can extend that cleanly. I think observation three holds true. Moreover, you don't explain this in your beginning framework. "Your elephant example is unrealistic. It never happens on this site." Irrelevant. You don't specify that as a necessary condition of semantical arguments to occur. Stop creating new framework rules, that's unfair. "Furthermore, semantical arguments usually involve sourcing new definitions. Defining "just" as "animals" does not happen here." Do you want to go ahead and redefine your position altogether? This is blatant abuse. As an aside to the voters: mongeese's original parameters for the debate were: Semantical: "a type of argument in which the Contender of a debate uses the fact that either the Instigator used a resolution that was easily abusable or the Instigator failed to define the resolution so that the Contender could take the debate away from the framer's intent." DO NOT LET HIM ADD: "that must be similar to debates that occur on debate.com, through the sourcing of new definitions" he is just voiding my entire speech by redefining the debate, if you let him do this then there isn't any purpose to debate because we can just redefine our arguments or positions. Perhaps the resolution actually says, "The holocaust is good!" well then OF COURSE you vote for me. A QUICK EXTENSION: "Note that this scenario simply means the resolution CAN be abused, he doesn't define that the resolution IS abused, so don't let him draw that conclusion later on." To clarify, I'm the impacts I draw later on are based on the FIRST scenario. So when he says: "When the Contender accepts the debate, he has a share in this world, as well. If the Instigator does not define anything, that's just asking for the Contender to do it for him. The framer created a world in which he did not give definitions. This leaves the Contender to add his own." 1: 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. 2: He says the framer didn't give definition, but that's not this particular scenario so you can IGNORE his refutation. 3: 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. Next he says: "Your example is ridiculous. High School Policy and alternative energy aren't linkable through definition. Semantical arguments use real definitions to their advantage. They take, "Humpty Dumpty was Pushed," and change it to, "The Force Known as Push in Physics Acted Upon Humpty Dumpty," not, "Cheese Tastes Good." Again, this is about general semantical arguments." 1: That avoids the impact entirely. The point is, you change the intent of the resolution which steals it away from it's original purpose, unfair to the instigator. His argument is irrelevant. 2: I already established that that form of rebuttal doesn't work, he's changing his definition. 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. Then, to the third impact: "A man who leaves his house unlocked deserves to be robbed. If a man starts a debate, and there is a man who can defeat him semantically, then the first man deserves to lose the debate, because there is a man who can beat him. Therefore, he deserves what he did not bother to prepare for." 1: WHY? This is an assertion. I don't really understand why leaving your door unlocked JUSTIFIES the violation of the inalienable right of property. If I don't wear a seatbelt do i DESERVE TO DIE? This is assertive logic, and if we accept it then we might as well kill people who don't wear helmets, seatbelts, kneepads, etc. You can't accept this, it is absurd. "My opponent thinks there is a link between alternative energy and high school policy. If he can prove this with viable definitions, then sure, there's a link. However, I doubt that he can." I was just saying some resolutions are intuitively understood and do not warrant definitions. I give the high school policy resolution as an example. "Huh? By my definition of a semantical argument, only the Contender can use semantics. The only part an Instigator plays is when he fails to defend against semantics." ... where exactly do you say that. To date, your definition of semantical is: Semantical: "an argument similar to those generally used on debate.org through the usage of sourced definitions, only implemented by the contender in the debate, that the instigator fails to defend against through offering a resolution that is not defined or lends itself easily to abuse, even though the instigator isn't the one abusing it because he isn't allowed." Compared to your opening definition: "a type of argument in which the Contender of a debate uses the fact that either the Instigator used a resolution that was easily abusable or the Instigator failed to define the resolution so that the Contender could take the debate away from the framer's intent." There's a bit of a difference, don't you think? "Why? Usually, a semantical argument stems from the lack of an opening argument by the Instigator." "usually" is a blanket statement, I don't think you can justify that. 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. Finally, your argument: "1. If a man does not bother to defend against something, he deserves to be attacked by it, to teach him not to be so ignorant as to not acknowledge it." this is an assertion, but you can cross apply my reasoning earlier: should we kill people who don't wear seatbelts? "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." This argument is only justified if the 1st is, and the first isn't so whatever. VOTERS: 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. 2: He only asserts what "deserved" is, but he can't justify that, it doesn't make sense. 3/4: My issues w/ abuse that i outline in my case of semantics args (out of room, can't elaborate) NEGATE