You're a Walking talking dictionary.

• PRO advocates the rebirth of the Tower of Babel but instead of a curse of lingual differences, every person is cursed with individual semantic differences. 
  
• If individualized, custom definitions took precedence over learned definitions and shared definitions, every language would quickly devolve into meaninglessness, every individual's thinking lost in a individualized meanings.
  
• PRO gives us an example of racism meaning "systemic racism" but also "the system of white supremacy" but those two terms do generally mean about the same thing, the latter term only adding adjectives to define by race, so we're left with more confusion than resolution regarding PRO's proposal.
  
• CON finds it interesting that PRO offers a bunch of highly emotional human states and then one other word "accountability" which is exactly the notion that is missing from PRO's plan.
  
• We already use the word WAR to a degree sufficiently variable that one speaker may mean  an "organized, large-scale, armed conflict between countries or between national, ethnic, or other sizeable groups, usually involving the engagement of military forces." while the listener may interpret the word to mean "a  particular card game for two players, notable for having its outcome predetermined by how the cards are dealt" so when we hear the word used, we have to figure out the most likely meaning according to context.
  
• So when the Japanese Emperor Hirohito wrote "We hearby declare WAR on the United States of America and the British Empire."  the president of the United States of America had to figure out Hirohito's intended meaning based from the limited set of potential meanings documented in dictionaries and choose the likeliest meaning based on context (i.e. a card game with the Emperor would be unlikely, 350 planes had just attacked Pearl Harbor, etc)
  
• Now comes PRO with the suggestion that the consensus of meanings documented in dictionaries and encyclopedias and filtered by context is insufficient because people construct new meanings all the time.
  
• PRO's plan would have Roosevelt write back the Emperor to make sure that he meant armed conflict and not a card game or some new independent meaning like friendship.
  
• If the meaning of words is always personal and subject to change what can be the value of any oath or contract, given that if the contract binds unfavorably one can merely change the meaning of the words for relief ?
  
• Currency is likewise a human construct and we can see in this instance how essential it is for everybody to be on the same page in terms of value.  If everybody were allowed to determine their own personal, customized  value of the US Dollar, we can easily imagine how quickly the monetary system would collapse.  
  
• Social constructs require a lot of definition, out of which demand such references as foreign exchange rates and dictionaries are born.
  

• Whether PRO means that CON is a dictionary or  suggests that CON is his own best dictionary, PRO is shown to be wrong.  A shared reality requires a carefully curated lexicon of stable meanings, documented with consistency to minimize mistakes in meaning.  PRO's plan would quickly create increasing gaps between the circles of our common understandings as individual need  to be correct supplanted the common need to communicate, devolving to semantic chaos.
  
• CON looks forward to PRO's R2.

R2: Do you agree that people are the source of languages, words and definitions?

R3: The dictionary is the record consensus taken from the organic vocabulary or dictionary.   The only point , the main thing of this debate right here. 

This is why it's important to not stick with a consensus as a be all, end all as definitions change

You always seek what a word means to an individual or what it means when said.

There are also those that use the word slavery interchangeably with penal prison system or with mistreatment.

 it is incorrect in thinking or assuming that a definition hasn't changed or varied since the last time you read a dictionary

• (because individuals may have changed a word's meaning since reading a dictionary)
  
• PRO dropped this argument

• and falsely asserted that "humans alone define language" concedes PRO's argument that "individuals, not dictionaries define language."
  
• CON's obvious intent was  "humans alone and not animals" rather than "humans alone and not dictionaries"
  
• CON calls this semantic sleight an argument made in bad faith on the part of PRO.
  
• VOTERS will note that PRO never addressed CON's attempts to clarify thesis and never bothered to prove that "individual  human understandings of words ought to take precedence over collective, consensus understandings of words as offered in dictionaries.
  
• CON asks VOTERS to find arguments in favor of CON since PRO never really made a case for either interpretation of the topic "You're a walking, talking dictionary."
  
• Thanks to Mall for instigating this debate
  
• Thanks to VOTERS for their kind consideration
  
• Please VOTE CON!