Something

im proud of you being responsible and clear in presenting even an assumed truism debate. well done.

Yes, it was, sorry about that. Regardless, thank you for the vote.

This is quite confusing

Took me a little while to see this, my apologies..

I accept this mini-debate, I will be con. And same as Melch, I will have one round.

The BoP is, "this debate is about something".
Pro needs to argue that this debate is about something
Con needs to argue that this debate is not about something

I accept the definition of something: "some indeterminate or unspecified thing"

I am arguing that this debate is not about something. This is because this debate is specific and determined. Let me address these both a little bit more..

- This is specific because it says what this debate is about, meaning we know specifically what we are debating about.
- This is determined because once again it says what the debate it about. This is not something that is vague, we know how to argue this debate.

Further, since you even made an argument it shows you know what we're debating about. What does this mean? Its specific enough for you to be able to debate this.

well, just for fun, ill debate you in comments as if i was the pro. i have 1 round.

a
: some indeterminate or unspecified thing

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/something

not anything : not a thing
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/nothing

I argue that this debate is both something in existance and meaning.
the burden of proof is that something does exist. and by definition it does, even if it is an unspecified thing.

con must rebutt or argue that something does not exist.

I also expect them to forfeit this debate either way.

I understand your point. I looked up many different definitions of "something".

They could very well use this definition:
Something is some thing; a certain undetermined or unspecified thing.

Well, lets see.. Unspecific thing? This is specific because its talking about "something". This debate is determined. As you say, it's a truism debate. Meaning this debate is determined.

doesnt matter. its a truism debate, if you define something and nothing in the debate it nets only source and conduct.

by all means, i enourage you to find the defintion, link it and counter something

I did think about this, however all I need to do is reject it. There are most likely multiple definitions on other websites of "something" and I could use that to my advantage.

Further, all it says is "something". What does this mean? Nobody knows. The resolution would be hard for the pro. That said, even if he did make a random valid argument I could counter it by saying it doesn't validate the title.

supporting semantic kritik. debate (if abiding by the arguement something is something and not nothing) is truism and is not subject to serious voting procedure

semantic kritik.
this debate is something and cannot be debated as nothing. it is impossible for something to be nothing.
since pro must affirm it is something and con must reject it, and con cannot logically reject it is something. bella loses and ifoundashotgun wins by default.
no arguements needed.
all that is needed is definiton of something, nothing and a statement declaring the debate is something.

I doubt he will even make an argument and just go offline forever.

Even if they do have something, I accepted this knowing it's also something I can rebuttal against even with the poor resolution.

Easy qualification. :)

Welcome to the site. Under the current settings you'll pretty much auto lose this debate. A single round gives you no ability to defend your case; and the resolution is poorly defined to say the least.