Words have no meaning

Resolution: Words have no meaning.

updated so SNP1 can accept.

Note, the resolution we have is that "Words have no meaning".

This is not "Words have no intrinsic meaning", but that words themselves have no meaning.

The only evidence I need to support my side of the argument is that you can understand the point I am making through the words I am using. Even looking at the discussion Pro and I had in the comments shows that Pro sees meaning in words.

These meanings are not intrinsic to the combination of letters or sounds, but that is besides the point for the resolution.

My opponent is correct that the resolution is not "Words have no intrinsic meaning".

Biased Voting is Not Allowed

Here on debate.org, there are rules that are to be followed when voting on a debate. One of these rules includes the topic of "Voting based on personal bias" [1].

"You are supposed to evaluate the debate from the perspective of an unbiased third party who has no opinion about the topic and has no prior knowledge about the subject matter of the debate." [1]

If a person evaluates this debate using their prior knowledge that words have meaning, then that person is not qualified to vote on this debate since they would be voting based on their personal perspective that is biased against the resolution. Interpreting meaning from words in this debate would be an example of using one"s prior knowledge that words have meaning to evaluate this debate.

Therefore any person who wishes to vote on this debate can"t use the assumption that words have meaning to evaluate meaning from words in this debate. Additionally, interpreting meaning from the words in this debate"s resolution would mean that person is biased against the resolution from the start of evaluating this debate and is therefore not allowed to vote, and since you can"t vote without understanding the resolution, no one is capable of casting a valid vote on this debate whether or not they understand the meaning of the words in the resolution of this debate.

Why you should not cast invalid votes

Votes that do not adhere to voting standards will be removed by vote moderators. Additionally, if too many of one"s votes get removed, that person will eventually lose voting privileges. Also casting invalid votes wastes the vote moderators" time. So it would be better if people didn"t intentionally cast invalid votes on any debate, including this one.

Conclusion

The content of this debate is meaningless since no one will be able to cast a valid vote in response to the content of this debate. This argument was just a courtesy to those who mistakenly assumed that they could use their prior opinion that words have meaning to vote on this debate so that I can save them the trouble of having their vote removed.

Sources
[1] http://www.debate.org...

If I knew that this would be the tactic you were going to use, then I would have prepared differently for this debate in a way that I could use visuals in order to attach meaning to different words (thus bypassing the prior word meaning argument) and then use words that I have given meaning via visuals to debate. As I do not have time, I agree that no one can cast a valid vote on this debate.

Well played, well played.

I was hoping for more of a rebuttal from Con, but I guess I will take a 0 to 0 tie against a user with a higher Elo than myself as a personal victory.

Good debate.