i never tried to "refute the preamble"; indeed there's nothing to refute there. Rather, I did refute your circular definition of "social contract".
"-- I'll smash your definition, sending you back to square one. --"
The Constitutions preamble is a definition of the social contract embodied in that document. - You cannot refute that fact, [much less smash it] and you haven't even tried.
i never tried to "refute the preamble";
Is there an echo in here?
-- indeed there's nothing to refute there.
So your circular argument goes, -- because you can't refute the preamble as a definition.
Rather, I did refute your circular definition of "social contract".
Where? -- I made no such "circular definition". You're simply inventing your refutation to avoid trying to "smash" the one I did tender.