Resolved: Annemarie is a raving maniac.

I accept this debate to which my opponent has challenged me; however I challenge the definitions my opponent presented as they are abusive to the resolution, and ask for the judges to accept the definitions I have supplied below: Annemarie: Annemarie Krall; high school student in West Virginia [1] Raving: declaiming wildly [2] Maniac: a person who has an obsession with or excessive enthusiasm for something[3] Signposting:I will present my casethen move on to deconstruct my opponent’s case MY CASE Contention one: Annemarie is a well rounded person. She participates in science fairs and science poster contests[4,5]. As a middle school student she started taking classes in Latin, violin, fencing, and rowing, all of which she continues to this day[6]. She is also currently playing tennis and ukulele. She is a member of a 32-consecutive state championship speech and debate team and plays violin in the best high school orchestra in West Virginia. She has maintained a straight-A average her entire life in challenging courses. In these regards she is exhibiting a high standard of what is known as the Theory of Multiple Intelligences by Howard Gardner. Spatial - fencingLinguistic - debate team/Latin/English/FrenchLogical-mathematical - debate/TrigonometryBodily-kinesthetic - rowing/fencing/tennisMusical - violin/piano/ukuleleInterpersonal - in a relationship with a very nice young man/has many friends/is well likedIntrapersonal - keeps a diary of self-improvement, similar to Benjamin FranklinNaturalistic - Frequently ventures into nature hikes with her father Contention two: Via definition of terms Annemarie is not a raving maniac. With a healthy variety of interests and activities Annemarie has demonstrated herself to be a well-rounded person; a well-rounded person does not have “an obsession with or excessive enthusiasm for something;” therefore, Annemarie is not a maniac.Annemarie has many close friends and is accepted in school/community; a raving person would not be of likeable social status; therefore, Annemarie isn’t involved with raving.In conclusion Annemarie is not a raving maniac, and my opponent has failed to provide any substantial arguments as to why she could even be misconstrued as being a raving maniac.DECONSTRUCTION RC1: “Annemarie has proven nothing.” My opponent’s first contention doesn’t even fit inside the scope of this debate. If he wanted to demonstrate that she is a “raving maniac,” he should have used Annemarie’s actions or statements as proof. However, since Annemarie hasn’t proven that for his case, Con wins.“She is dumb” this is an unsubstantiated ad hominem that is irrelevant to the topic of resolution. RC2: “Annemarie doesn't even know her own name.” This does not pertain to the resolution, and even if it did, Pro has yet to demonstrate any clear link. “She is simply retarded.” Once again, this is an unsubstantiated ad hominem that is irrelevant to the topic of resolution. RC3: This contention should not even be addressed, because of its abject stupidity; it is a disgrace to the art of debate. Thank you for debating and judging :) [1]https://www.theintelligencer.net... [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [3] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [4]http://www.theintelligencer.net... [5] http://www.smartcenter.org... [6]http://culogin.theintelligencer.net...