"Wealthy" is a relative term, rather than an absolute one.

I will begin with clarifications on Pro's definitional framework. The only coherent definition is one that is consistent with logic. Despite my opponent's appeal to dictionaries, I'm intent on exposing the incoherency of some of the definitions he has provided. Concerning the definition of absolute, recall the law of the excluded middle. A or ~A. Pro either is or is not my opponent, and the property of being "wealthy" either is or is not absolute. An absolute property is one that either is, or is not. The truth or existence of it is not contingent on other entities or contexts. An absolute, in other words, is an objective fact, rather than a comparative estimation (the latter being Pro's definition of relative). Further note that Pro has defined "wealthy" in such a way so as to make a Con victory impossible if I blindly accept it without clarifying what is meant by "abundant". "abundant" 1. present in great quantity; more than adequate; oversufficient Only with this definition of "abundant" does Pro's definition of "wealthy" become coherent. For my own part, I define wealthy strictly, as "possessing wealth"; I believe Pro and I agree on a definition of wealth centered on economic utility. Also, though I've presented an alternative definition for "wealthy", I'll make my case for both definitions, proving that being wealthy is an absolute attribute either way. On to arguments. 1. "Wealth is a relative term with differing degrees." a. Pro is confusing descriptor and degree. Look back at the law of the excluded middle (or LEM, as I'll call it from here). An object or person must either possess an attribute, or not possess it. Whether he possesses a particular property doesn't change based on those with whom you compare him. If you compare a (tan) Caucasian man to a Black man, he does not become any whiter in the presence of dark skin. If you compare this same man to a (pale) Caucasian man, he does not become any less white in the presence of far lighter skin. The descriptor – white, does not change. The degree – "whiter than", "less white than" does change. In the same way, one must either be wealthy or not wealthy. The descriptor is a constant; the degree is not. I, for example, am "wealthier than" an African orphan, but "less wealthy than" Bill Gates. The fact that I currently possess wealth (or a quantity of wealth which is "more than adequate" for my needs, by Pro's definition) does not change when I am compared to others. I am no poorer when I stand next to Bill Gates, just as I am no whiter when I stand next to Denzel Washington. b. The example of death has no relation to the topic. Pro fails to realize that not all descriptors have degrees attached to them. Death is one which does not; solidity, however, is, and is a better fit, example-wise. Oak is solid. Titanium is solid. Oak is less solid than Titanium; however, Oak does not become less solid as a result of being compared to Titanium. Pro is clearly making a hasty generalization in assuming that, to be an absolute property, there cannot be degrees. Possessing an attribute to a particular degree, however, does not affect whether you actually possess it. c. In terms of "external factors", he brings up market forces. He says that the value of what you possess can change based on how other people value it. First of all, note that an increase or decrease in how much someone values what you have does not change whether you possess wealth at all. Second of all, look to the definition of abundant, which is in no way tied to comparative evaluations of value. An oversufficient, "more than adequate" supply is the criterion we're examining. Third and finally, Pro may argue that market forces may devalue your assets to the point that your wealth is no longer "more than adequate" for your needs. This is true; however, wealth still would not be relative, since whether you possess wealth (or an oversufficient quantity thereof) is still the consideration. Either you do or do not possess wealth; either you or do not possess a quantity of wealth more than adequate for your needs. Regardless of the definition, being wealthy is still an absolute property. 2. "Some examples…" I'll letter the examples in accordance with Pro's numbering. a. Pro is definitely misusing "wealthy", here. The way this example presents it, the term is very "colloquialized", and omits a lot of implied information, much in the same way that a child dancing around and chanting "I gotta go" clearly implies what wasn't verbalized. In saying that Rupert Murdoch is wealthy compared to me, what's logically implied is that Rupert Murdoch is /wealthier/ than I. Additionally, it seems Pro is arguing that whether one has the attribute of being wealthy is up to the subjective interpretation of some third party, as opposed to being an objective fact. Rather than "is he wealthy or not", Pro posits the question "does person X consider him wealthy in comparison to her?" In doing so, he completely destroys the logical coherency of the term "wealthy". b. In terms of possessing wealth, one would still possess wealth regardless of location; the degree of purchasing power accorded to that wealth is all that would change. I would be /less wealthy/ in Los Angeles than in Bartlesville. In terms of possessing a "more than adequate" amount of wealth, it's still absolute. Looking back to the LEM, one either does or does not possess a degree of wealth oversufficient for his needs. In some contexts, you do. In some contexts, you do not. However, a property being dependent on context does not make it relative. Pick any context, and wealth will still be absolute within it. c. Your status could easily change, yes. Regardless of that change, you still either are or aren't wealthy. The fact that someone with more money than you suddenly walks into the room doesn't devalue what you own. d. The fact that your wealth is being gambled in the stock market doesn't change that, at any given moment, you either are or aren't wealthy. Dependence on market forces =/= relative. e. By my definition, they're still wealthy, inasmuch as they possess wealth. By your definition, the fact that they do not possess a quantity of goods more than adequate for their needs means that they aren't wealthy, even if that person stands side-by-side with an African orphan who possesses nothing with any exchange value whatsoever; ergo, it's still absolute. 3. "According to Cody…" a. By my strict definition of wealth, the descriptor "wealthy" applies inasmuch as they possess any wealth at all. The degree may well be "not very", but changing the degree doesn't change the descriptor. The fact that I have proposed such a definition for "wealthy" is a result of the fact that my opponent's definition, taken without my own clarifications, is meaningless. 4. "The Objectivist Mantra…" a. The statement "A is A" isn't specific to Objectivism. It's the Law of Identity. This law tells you not just that a thing is itself, but that it is of a specific nature, and possesses specific properties. If you look also to another axiom, the LEM, you'll see that a thing must either possess a certain property, or doesn't. These axioms imply absolutes. Whether someone or something possesses a particular property in a particular context in no way changes that, logically, such properties are absolute. While Pro's position seems to be "some properties depend on whether people choose to describe things that way as compared to other things", Con offers you a logical axiom. A man is either wealthy, or he is not - in Tokyo, in 1893, or even next to Bill Gates. Even with both definitions, this is true. One either possesses wealth, or he does not. Alternatively, one either possesses a quantity of wealth more than adequate for his needs, or he does not. The LEM continues to apply, regardless of the definition. I look forward to Round 2. Con out.