When you accept a debate you should also accept that the resolution is real/applicable.

Invariably. You should not accept (or start, for that matter) a debate hoping to win by proving that the resolution does not exist or does not make sense.

Here is an example: http://www.debate.com/debates/In-the-last-two-years-The-Indianopolis-Colts-were-a-better-team-than-the-New-England-Patriots./1/

In this debate, the instigator used a misspelling of the resolution to tip the scales in his favor. Such semantics avoid the entire objective of a debate.

http://www.debate.com/debates/Adam-Woman-the-first-humans-are-innocent-victims-of-a-confidence-trick./1/

Here, the contender negated the resolution by dismissing it as a myth.

When you accept a debate, you should also accept that the resolution applies; otherwise, what is the debate?

My opponent, gahbage, in his opening argument asserted his opinion and provided two examples of the debate topic. Through this, he only provided one argument for his position-- that picking at the resolution would distract from the debate topic. I will not challenge this.

Instead, I will remind gahbage that this is a two round debate, and that the rules of debate stipulate that no new arguments may be introduced in a closing argument. Seeing as gahbage only has a closing argument left for this debate, any new arguments introduced by him from now on should be ignored and disregarded when determining the winner for this debate.

Thus, all I need to do to win this debate, is to provide one argument better than gahbage's only argument. If gahbage is unable to successfully counter even one of my more superior arguments in this round, I win by default.

-----

Now to my arguments:

1. My opponent believes that when one accepts a debate, he/she should believe that the resolution is real and applicable. However, what about debates that deal with God, global warming, the soul, and other such topics? Let us take the example of the resolution "God Is Real and Applicable". If the instigator was pro, the contender position would be that: God Is Neither Real nor Applicable. This would go in direct conflict with my opponent's resolution. Because gahbage's resolution is an absolute statement, finding even one exception wins me the debate. Therefore, I win this debate.

2. This debate's resolution's indirect object is "you". Some people may believe that the word "you" can be "Used reflexively as the indirect object of a verb" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). This however, as the dictionary says, is slang. "You" must refer to a specified person, or refer to the one or ones being addressed. In both correct definitions, the person(s) addressed is left ambiguous. I must then assume that "you" refers to me, PoeJoe. The resolution then becomes: "When PoeJoe accepts a debate, PoeJoe should also accept that the resolution is real and applicable." That's blatantly unfair, and I denounce such a resolution! As I am proving right now, I do not have to accept your resolution. Therefore, I win the debate.

3. Not being picky about the spelling and wording of resolutions allows for people to get sloppy with them, as you have been. Too frequently, I see poorly formed resolutions! Why shouldn't wording matter in debate? I know I don't want to become a sloppy debater! Assuming that you, the person reading this text, does not want to become a sloppy debater, I win the debate.

Thank you for your time. Vote CON!

Thank you PoeJoe for accepting, I'm hopeful that we'll have a good debate.

"Instead, I will remind gahbage that this is a two round debate, and that the rules of debate stipulate that no new arguments may be introduced in a closing argument."

True, I can't do that. I can still rebut though, and if I can rebut your points then I will have the vote.

====

1. "However, what about debates that deal with God, global warming, the soul, and other such topics?"

Well, why would you plan to debate something that you don't believe exists? This is why you will often see debates supporting Atheism that start with "Please don't accept this if you're not a Christian", etc. It's like playing a game. You agreed to participate, so you are obligated to play by the rules. Now, I don't mean to outlaw semantics or anything; only accepting a debate not to prove your position (Pro or Con), but instead to prove the resolution is non-existent based on one's own beliefs.

"Because gahbage's resolution is an absolute statement, finding even one exception wins me the debate. Therefore, I win this debate."

Alright, I worded the resolution poorly. >.< But the thing is, you're only supporting your position if you say "God is Neither Real nor Applicable". That's an exception because the explicit purpose of Con is to disprove it. If the debate was something like my second example, where the instigator planned on debating about Adam and Eve's morals but instead got an "Adam and Eve don't exist", it would avoid the entire point of debate. Which is not something that should be done often on a debating website.

2. "That's blatantly unfair, and I denounce such a resolution! As I am proving right now, I do not have to accept your resolution. Therefore, I win the debate."

False. Under your reasoning, everyone else who reads the resolution will feel that way, INCLUDING ME, so it will apply to everyone. Which is fair.

3. " . . . Assuming that you, the person reading this text, does not want to become a sloppy debater, I win the debate."

I'm not saying that attacking a resolution is unfair; otherwise I would have complained about your previous points and not refuted them. Rather, I am saying that nobody should be attacking a resolution, in order to avoid debate, based on one's personal beliefs. Let me give some examples:

GOOD: http://www.debate.com/debates/Bananas-are-a-fruit/1/

These are good/fair semantics. The resolution was sloppy, and the contender (on a side note, who should be winning ;P) used this to his advantage. He used a FACT, that "bananas are not A fruit", and not his own subjective beliefs, to attack the resolution.

BAD: http://www.debate.com/debates/Adam-Woman-the-first-humans-are-innocent-victims-of-a-confidence-trick./1/ (yes I know it's the same debate as R1, deal with it)

These are bad/unfair semantics. The instigator clearly wanted to debate someone who believed the resolution actually HAPPENED, not someone who didn't believe that Adam and Eve existed. The contender used opinion as an argument, or "evidence". And we all know that opinion will get you nowhere in a debate without proper support.

====

I believe I've successfully refuted my opponent's argument while upholding my own (notice how he didn't argue my examples), so at this point you vote PRO.

I've had a fun time gahbage. Thank you for this debate. And I like your new monkey picture as well. It's cute.

-----

1. My first argument still stands. I quoteth: "Alright, I worded the resolution poorly... That's an exception...". Gahbage agrees that his resolution was falsely written to his intended view, and that I have successfully found an exception to this false resolution. However, he does not tell us what he would change the resolution to. Thus, the current resolution stands. Again, I only need to find one exception to win this debate -- this has not been disputed -- and I have found one. Thus, I win this debate. He does go on to cite his Adam and Eve example, but this is negligent and should be ignored. All I needed to do, was to find an example, and I did.

2. My second argument still stands; gahbage misunderstood my reasoning. The word "you" when used reflexively as the indirect object of a verb is highly informal. In gahbage's R2 (and less so in his R1), it is more than obvious that he is speaking to me. Thus, I was only right to assume that "you" must refer to me. What other specified person(s) could he be talking to? He does not tell me.

3. My third argument still stands. My opponent agrees that attacking a resolution is fair game under certain circumstances. Like I have said, I need only to find one exception to his resolution. Here, he blatantly writes that there are exceptions to his resolution. Therefore, I win this debate.

All my arguments stand. Now, you, the audience, must weigh them against gahbage's one argument. The winner is clear.