Semantics lovers, this debate is for you

RE forfeit: The reason behind me posting my round in the comment section was entirely to demonstrate that I do not acknowledge the previous round as a forfeit or a mistake on my part and never will. That said, you're free to consider it as a forfeit if you don't believe me. ===== beem0r said . . . >L-M supposes that I didn't bring up 'semantics lovers' because I know that I am one. This is false. I did not bring it up because it is unclear to whom L-M is referring. I say . . . > In spite of saying that I believed the topic was clear enough, I stated nothing that would attempt to clarify the actual topic. Thus, "semantics lovers" is truly no less clear than the "this debate is for you" part." In addition, as suggested by the terms in my R1, I gave full permission for my opponent to interpret the topic in whatever way he chooses. ==== beem0r said . . . >He obviously is not referring solely to the contender [me], since 'semantics lovers' is plural. I say . . . > No, I'm not referring solely to my opponent. I'm referring to semantics lovers. As I stated at the end of my seemingly forfeited round, I meant this debate to be for those who love semantics. What my opponent seems to misunderstand is that him being a semantics lover would devastate his position. Basically, he (if we are to conclude that he is a semantics lover) chose to join this debate out of his own free will, thus not only provides evidence that this debate is in fact for semantics lovers (a semantics lover joining a debate which is meant to determine whether or not it is for semantics lovers), but unknowingly conceded to the topic itself, given that he joined, hence acknowledging the topic as being true. In other words, my opponent lost the debate the moment he clicked the "accept" button. ==== beem0r said . . . >In other news, I don't really even like semantics, though I am forced to sometimes use semantics on this site. Even so, if I was a semantics lover, I could still not be the 'semantics lovers' referred to in the topic of this discussion. I say . . . My opponent has told an obvious lie here. Given that we are debating in THIS debate, let us look at the definition of semantics: http://www.askoxford.com... Given that "meaning" of the logic and/or linguistics is what all debates concern, we can conclude that my opponent always uses semantics. Thus, this could merely comes down to whether or not my opponent loves debate. If you'll note his profile, you shall see that he has debated within 126 debates on this website called Debate.org In addition, he even includes debating as one of his activities. Now if we look back to the credible definition of love which we noted in the previous round (http://www.askoxford.com... ), you'll note that "showing great care" is considered love. Given that 126 debates is obvious evidence that beem0r shows great care of debating as well as the fact that he has responded as early as possible on each of the rounds of this debate, it is more likely that not that beem0r is in FACT a debate lover (which would make him a semantics lover as well, given that all debates revolve around the aforementioned definition). In terms of not being one of the semantics lovers referred to in the topic, the topic just says semantics lovers. In other words, lovers of semantics. As you can see , there is no specific group of semantics lovers which is being referred to. ==== beem0r said . . . "1. I said 'tempting' in the comment section here. >Note that this has nothing to do with semantics." I say . . . > I beg to differ. At the time my opponent made that comment, the only material available on this page was this debate. No one else had made a comment, ergo, this debate could have been the only thing he was referring to (more likely than not anyway). Given that this debate was directed at semantics lovers and that my opponent provided no objection to being a semantics lover in this comment, that he made a claim that is used by those who show deep lust or charm towards something (tempting) it can be concluded that he acknowledged himself as a semantics lover. Further evidence of this fact is that his first round consist of nothing more than usage of semantics. And once more, NO OBJECTION to being a semantics lover. The evidence is strongly against my opponent. ==== beem0r said . . . > I didn't address the 'semantics lovers' part of L-M's claim earlier in the debate. >This is because I didn't need to, and because it was his responsibility to explain what it is he is claiming. I was simply waiting for him to do just that. I say . . . > True, but beem0r did not need to address ANYTHING. Thus, it comes off as strange that he'd willingly address one thing without addressing the other. Why not just insist that I clarify? ==== beem0r said . . . > This discussion could not be called a 'heated' exchange of opposing views, nor is it a _formal_ discussion in a _public_ _meeting_. I say . . . >Indeed, it can be called "heated" exchange of opposing views. My opponent has asserted that I am a liar and am simply trying to gain sympathy with my so-called forfeit in the previous round. I have insinuated that my opponent is a liar in claiming that he rarely uses semantics in spite of using semantics in all of his debates (given that semantics are what debates revolve around). Both of these comments can be considering heated, therefore that definition is fulfilled. In terms of whether or not this is formal, I'll get to that below. ==== beem0r said . . . >a. This discussion is not formal. b. Debate.org is a private website. c. This discussion is not a meeting. Even if L-M and myself are sometimes online at the same time, it is unlikely that we have even once been on this page at the same time. Even so, such a thing is hardly a meeting. I'm sure there has been a time when both myself and L-M were on www.google.com, but it's nonsense to call that a 'meeting.' To be a meeting, we would have to meet each other there. I say . . . a. Reiterating what I said in response to CON's terms of a formal debated: It is a fact that we cannot speak to one another in however way we wish. This is proven based on the fact that we are limited to 8000 characters in each round as well as the fact that there are certain words which this website will not allow. Also there are means at which this debate can be taken down based on how we act/speak. In other words, this is clearly a formal debate. b. It may be private in terms of members being able to debate, but is quite public in terms of members being able to see these debates. As long as we can be seen publicly, it is considered public. c. First, both my opponent and myself have most likely on this page at the same time during this debate. This can be seen in the comment sections when I had twice responded to him quickly after he had commented. Second, using this definition of meeting ( http://www.askoxford.com... ), it merely has to be a "coming togehter" or two or more people. We are two or more people and we are clearly associating with one another via this website (hence the coming together), ergo, this is a meeting. ==== beem0r said . . . >"This discussion is not heated because of the lack of enthusiasm" I say . . . Enthusiasm has nothing to do with being "heated." Heated merely concerns content of the discussion. As I've shown above, FIERCE attacks have been used by both sides, hence making the discussion "heated." ==== beem0r said . . . >Something cannot 'be for semantics lovers' if that thing cannot even 'be.' For X to be for Y, X must be at all first. I say . . . >To reiterate what I've said previously, nothing is in fact something (a concept). Given that one is perfectly capable of receiving nothing (like a lonely orphan's christmas), there is nothing illogical about CON getting