Definitions posted by the Instigator in Round 1 should be treated more like rules than contentions.

My basic contention is that while I agree most debates will feature clear definitions that are understood by both the instigator and the contender, with no controversy and no attempt at change, there will be some debates in which challenging the debate can happen in a legitimate way and for a legitimate purpose. Such debates happen in many philosophic debates, such as free will, personhood, personal identity, ethics, etc. Since my opponent doesn't seem to see the point I am making, in the following section I will respond to some of his key quotes and demonstrate my positoin via my responses. His major fault is his myopic view of how to treat definitions one does not agree with: ==================== A couple of responses ==================== "My opponent assumes that if definitions were established as rules, then any attempt at debate would be absurd. " ----> No, I said that if definitions were established as rules, this would ignore the fact that there are many (though not all) debates about finding the correct definition. "Additionally, my opponent tries to establish the existence of a "correct" definition. However, a definition is merely an interpretation of a word. .. Definitions are merely statements to explain what words mean. " ----> Read my argument again; I specifically stated that a definition is correct if it's used in the context of figuring out the truth (which we do in debate all the time). If we debate about what personhood is, then we assume that some property/essence/etc. would be what we would call personhood - and this would be very important given the moral and legal ramifications. Therefore, finding the CORRECT definition of personhood is important, and we shouldn't simply submit to arbitrary definitions. Your example of lines of gibberish equaling a coherent resolution is completely missing the point. The difference is linguistic, and is not what we mean by a different semantical usage - which refers to a word's inherent MEANING. "If the Instigator declares that the debate will assume "Link" to refer to a video game character rather than a connection between two things, that is really not arguable, and therefore cannot be a contention. " ----> If the instigator were to use this definition to prove the existence of something that wouldn't be supported under the existence of a video game character, then the contender has all the ammunition needed to destroy the instigator's position. For example, if the instigator used the video game definition and argued that "there is no link between smoking cigarette and lung cancer", then the contender can refute this by showing he is equivocating. "However, if the Instigator chooses to define personhood in a way that is biased towards the Instigator, then the people can boycott the Instigator until the Instigator declares that the definition will be up for debate. " ----> By biased, I assume you mean a definition that the contender does not agree with. Sure, he could "boycott" the debate but how will that take place? A comment or private message saying that he doesn't agree with the proposed definition and it should be otherwise? If that is so. .. then that is EXACTLY what any debate on personhood is about; the contender could and very well should simply accept the debate and argue over that. Sure, he could refuse or boycott the debate, but he can also accept it and challenge the definition - thus treating definitions not as rules but contentions. "If the Instigator defines free will as the Source model, then the debate is obviously going to be about whether or not the Source model is correct. .. " ----> I assume you mean correct in the sense of "can the Source model provide free will's existence", since this is what you make it out to mean. Obviously, then, you can argue in another way by demonstrating whether or not the Source model is an appropriate model of control - which it often is reduced to. The contender could either show the Source model is inadequate to account for control, or he can show that the Source model does not deny/affirm free will (depending on his position in the debate). You are unfairly restricting the options available. "owever, if he does not make an opening argument, sure that his definition would be enough to clarify his intentions (as is the case in numerous debates in DDO), then there's no argument that can support the furniture definition as opposed to the data definition, with the exception of the idea that the Instigator's definition is already consented to, and therefore taken as a rule. " ----> Sure. .. then the contender might have no ammunition to use against the instigator. In such a case, then the contender can simply NOT challenge the definition. My position never stated every debate would be susceptible to refutation. ==================== Conclusion ==================== It's pretty apparent that my opponent completely passes by my argument. He misunderstands and misinterprets what I say, as is evident from his responses. I'm not saying nor implying that every debate is legitimate to a definition revision; but I am saying that SOME ARE. If this is so, then it can't be an absolute guideline that definitions are to be treated as rules and not as contentions. If there are exceptions, then definitions should be treated as contentions - if you don't challenge them, then this is similar to agreeing/conceding to a definition.