Debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature.

His line-by line, then Voters. "No, there is no concievable way that you can take a word and logically change its definition. The word "excellent" is there to prove that it has an higher being. Don't run semantics, it's annoying." - Yes, there is. Let's look to an example. The word "hysterical", as summarized from the definitions of dictionary.com, means "extremely emotional". However, if we look to the etymology and the original context of the word, it was "Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus." (http://www.etymonline.com...) Also, take the word "A-hole" (couldn't write out the whole thing, debate.org rules). It used to mean the anus, but now it's commonly used to describe very annoying people. And as for the semantics argument, semantics is how we define words. What words mean is pretty freakin' important when it comes to debate. If draxxt wished to debate me on something else he thought of, he probably should have defined what he meant in R1. Well, he chose not to. And as for the annoying part, that's nonunique. Tons of people are annoyed with draxxt, tons of people are annoyed with me, tons of people are annoyed with X, Y, Z - X, Y, Z being anyone and everyone. Nonunique. "Would you like some examples?" - I didn't require any, as in my side of the debate I proposed that Formal debate was the best in its field (relieving an argumentative nature). "Obviously, insinuating that debating on this site is preferable to arguing with high school authority figures." - What is obvious to one is not obvious to another. "My opponent also forgets my ladder example. I believe that, without a shadow of a doubt, excellent can never be used as best unless given a prerequisite or proper connotation as to why it is. Until my opponent can prove that "excellent = best" There is no way his defense can make sense." And I have already done this since R2. I tell you that "Draxxt never specified exactly what Debate.org is superior to, so I had to use my definition. My definition did not specify what Debate.org is superior too, just like the resolution - If draxxt had said, say, Debate.org is a superior way to relieve an argumentative nature as opposed to arguing with your parents, then his refutation would stand true. Alas, that simply isn't the case." What I'm saying is that in order for HIS case to stand true, there must have been some object for Debate.org to compare to. If there is no comparison, then the default assumption is that Debate.org is excellent compared to any and all other things. I said this again in R3; "Since you provided no indication as to what Debate.org is excellent/superior in comparison to, then we must assume that Debate.org is excellent/superior to anything in its field, which, in this case, is "relieving an argumentative nature". Draxxt never explicitly said that excellent/superior equals best, true, but since he gave nothing to compare to in the words of the topic, the default is to compare to any and all things in that area. Debate.org simply is not excellent at relieving an argumentative nature." He then finishes the line of refutations off in R4 with a "you can't logically change definitions" and a "your arguments are annoying". I've already attacked it once earlier this round but let's go at it again. The first one: Since when was his definition 'THE definition'? If we look at how this debate ran up, my definition of excellent came first so if anything HE'S the one thats changing definitions, so you can throw it out. The second one: He gives no impact as to why this should change anything. "We all have our ideosyncracies and I think that is beside the point." - *shrugs* I just thought you wanted to keep talking on this point. "Formal debate would still exist in this scenario it would just be a very boring and repetitive function." - Extend everything I've said on this point. "Boring" and "Repetitive" are cancelled out by "thinking harder, more creatively, more quickly, and more strategically". "The resolution, "Debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature." in no way represents the connotation my opponent attempts to procure. Seeng as his entire logic depends on "excellent" meaning best, you cannot count the arguments valid." - Both of us presented a denotative case. - Excellent DOES mean best in this resolution. SUMMARY: I have never gone against the concept that Debate.org is a good way to relieve an argumentative nature. Hell, that's what I come here for! The reason why I don't agree with this resolution is because it claims that Debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature, and since there's nothing in the resolution or the PRO's R1 that presents what the resolution is comparing Debate.org to, then it's assumed that Debate.org is excellent bar none! I have answered his arguments on the "annoying semantics" part of the debate multiple times, and each of those times I have proved that his 'ladder of superiority' only works if there is actually a rung in the resolution: of which there is none. I completely agree that Debate.org is preferable for schools that cannot afford a travelling debate squad, but that's not what the resolution says. But even if you believe that my debate is actually based on semantics and "annoying stuff" to you as a judge and you don't buy it, let's look to the argument that draxxt and i agreed that would be the deciding factor if we took his side of the debate: Formal debate. In each of his rounds he says two things: "What about the poor schools?" and "It gets boring.". The first one I have shown since R2 to be a useless attack; "Just because they don't have the cash doesn't mean that formal debate isn't superior to debate.org, just as I can't afford a Boeing Dreamliner, but that doesn't mean it isn't superior to my model airplanes. Just because something is not financially available to some people does not invalidate it for comparison." ("Debate Teams" A, R2) The second argument has been taken out multiple times. Formal debate forces people to think harder, faster, more creatively and more strategically: everything that a person with an argumentative nature likes to do. draxxt has never in his 4 rounds disagreed with that argument. And since I win this argument, formal debate is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature compared to debate.org. You have two levels to vote on, both of which point to the CON. I urge a "negative" decision.