Empodicles' Elemental Theory.

For reference, the sources are: [1] . http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://www.straightdope.com... ---- Essentially, my opponent's argument is to call Empedocles’ elemental theory "Empedocles Elemental Theory" and, since we can't know what Empedocles’ was actually talking about, we can choose specific meanings for the words that makes it unprovable. If I were to concede the validity of this tactic, then that would essentially concede the debate. This tactic is invalid and, frankly, a bit silly. What are we talking about then? Words are referents. They allow us to refer to material things and communicate information to other people without requiring access to said material thing. I can talk to you about cars and you can know what I mean without us needing to find a car. More importantly, words allow for abstraction and the discussion of things for which there are no corresponding material objects. Words are also creative. They allow us to build and create novel concepts. We can use existing words and their meanings to create new concepts. Take, for example, discovering new things. We use existing words together to describe that new thing and to convey information about it. In this second sense we could create a conception of "Empedocles Elemental Theory" in which we use existing definitions of the words to 'build' this new concept. But this causes problems. In context, you appear to be referring to something that already exists, not something that you are constructing anew. Empedocles existed; he was Greek philosopher. He wrote about his ideas on the composition of matter. Thus, the natural assumption, when creating this debate, is that you are referring to these things which already exist. To then state that you are not referring to something which already exists (since you claim we cannot know what Empedocles was talking about) and then build a new concept using meanings of words of your own choosing is a bit misleading. If this was your intention, then it was upon you to define these concepts prior to the debate, especially considering your request to have Con (me) start with an argument. In short, this is a bait and switch. I took the bait, I admit, but I am not permitting the switch. What We Know You state, "Now, for all that we do know, Empedocles' theory had nothing to do with what all matter was composed of. " This statement can only refer to yourself, and as such your choice of pronoun "we" is assumptive. You may not know what Empedocles was talking about, but others do. We know this because he wrote his thoughts down. I made reference to statements about his work and now you have the source (1, above). Regardless of what words we use to describe Empedocles' theory and concepts, and regardless of what the many meanings of those words are today, we do know what Empedocles’ was talking about through translation and context. He was talking, in line with a number of other Greek philosophers, about the composition of the material world around them. To explain this he relied on the "Classical" elements and how they interacted with each other under the conditions I previously outlined (material, combine to form everything, cannot be decomposed). Summary In failing to explicitly define the concepts my opponent wished to discuss, my opponent made an implicit concession in favor of the status quo (which is typical for the "Pro" side of a debate anyway). The status quo regarding Empedocles’ theory is as I previously stated. Furthermore, in placing it upon me to initiate the argument, my opponent also implicitly conceded the opportunity to subsequently redefine those terms in later rounds. To allow otherwise would be to make debates impossible, as one side could simply choose different definitions for the words being discussed each round of debate to avoid having to actually do anything. Given this, the theory being discussed is Empedocles’ theory of the Classical elements as currently understood, which is subject to the refutations that I have provided, refutations have not been countered by my opponent.