>definition don't need to take definitions into account
A, yes, they kinda do,
B, if they don't what the fuck's the point of saying "they all say the same thing"

"Expansionism" is an act. An act of expanding the land of a country.

If you practice expansionism, then you're an expansionist.

if that country already had that land and lost it, taking it back isn't a fucking expansion, jesus christ

Syria wanting to take the Golan Heights means doing that act.

Of expanding the land of their country.

That is expansionism

BY DEFINITION

LITERALLY BY DEFINITION

<:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

You can't even disagree with it. It's literally the definition.

And I've shown you that

yes, I absolutely can, because none of your definitions are disproving my argument

you're just pretending my argument doesn't exist

Your argument is just straight false.

And I've shown that

Through those definitions

How can you argue against internationally agreed upon agreements?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE8Hr8jV9dU - The Jimmy Dore Show - FBI & CIA Implementing Coup On Trump?

Again. Expansionism is an act, the act of expanding ones controlled land. Retaking lost land, is expanding your controlled land. Thus is expansionist.

you haven't shown jack shit, you've literally avoided directly addressing my argument, and shown sources that explicity avoid the basis of my argument. How the fuck do you expect to disprove what you actively avoid addressing?

Again. Expansionism is an act, the act of expanding ones controlled land. Retaking lost land, is expanding your controlled land. Thus is expansionist.

Your agument is false.

I've shown you how it's false.

"Again. Expansionism is an act, the act of expanding ones controlled land. Retaking lost land, is expanding your controlled land. Thus is expansionist"

That right there. Shows your argument is false.

I can post the definition of "expansionism" or "expansionist" for you again.

If you want.

>I've asserted and repeated my own claim, therefore I've shown yours to be false
oh by all means, continue citing definitions that explicitly don't address my argument

You're literally trying to argue the definition is something else.

I've shown you proof.

Show me some.

There we are:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/expansionist

Evidence that your argument is wrong.

Right there.

Now the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong

Else you're just aimlessly saying words without any evidence.

Get to it.

What, proof that reaquiring something that was lost isn't an expansion? should I refer you to a basic maths/geometry course?

Yet I've shown you, through the very definition of expansionism they are expansionist.