To rebut your “smash” I don’t have to prove that what you tried to smash was correct. All I have to do is demonstrate your “smash” was incorrect.
As a poor example because you didn’t really smash, in response to: For Hobbes, the contract was an agreement between society and its government.
You said: “Thank you; you stand corrected.”
My rebuttal to your statement is: I merely offered the definitions up for you to smash. I did not say I agreed or disagreed with each, any or all of them therefore such agreement or disagreement is not in evidence and can not be corrected.
See? I didn’t have to do anything but address your smash on its own merits. And you are free to treat my rebuttal the same way.
That's where thinking skills would serve you so well. Hobbes's definition was already debunked in several prior posts. You really need me to repeat it again? There's no agreement between me and the government, because I never entered such an agreement. QED