I know thats the Urban Dictionary definition but if that is they case here then whats the fuss about? Just because the team decides to play together before joining up doesn't mean that they will work better as a team than a random group of people.

I think, in my opinion, the only issue is when Pre-made teams hide their status or go about ensuring they're facing disorganised opponents to ensure victory. The most common example is a Pre-made team who lie and claim not to be pre-made and then proceeds to dominate their lesser organised opponents with planned strategies. Organised Teams themselves aren't the problem.

What I am saying is there are (at least) two different definitions of pre-mades and I am trying to narrow it down to one.

When you say Pre-made are you saying it is different to Organised Teams? If so which is which? Because the thing I am confused about is if you should declare yourself pre-made even if you don't fall into Primal Zed's or my oppinion of pre-made (i.e. if you are just playing together without any sort of additional teamwork to the norm).

Two or more people that play together regularly on the same team.  You don't need to be good.  You don't need to be on voice chat.  You do not even need to know other person that well.  Some premades are good, others are bad. 

I play both with a premade (my brother) and also as a pugger.  If I host a 5v5 game and my brother is playing on my team, I will answer "yes" if someone asks if it's a premade even though only two of us on the team are a "premade."  I'll qualify it that only two of us are premade, but I still consider the game a premade.  I get a kick when people say they aren't a premade because they have a random third player - that's just disingenous to me.