All unadressed arguments in a debate should be considered concessions

Concession: the admitting of a point claimed in argument(1) I must say, I am quite puzzled by Cons opening round as his argument seems to have nothing to do with the resolution. This debate is about whether unaddressed arguments should be considered concessions. Yet he begins by presenting a simplified example of a debate, then stating that if he can prove neither side in his example conceded, he somehow wins. We are not debating what happened in Cons own made up hypothetical scenario. This debate is about real debates and how they should be judged. To that end, he presented no argument besides his very simple one sentence message that the audience has to decide which argument is better. Yes they do, what we are debating is how they should decide this. Hopefully Con will bring an argument for this in the next round. Pro Case 1. The participants are debating each other, not the voters. If the voters are to decide for themselves whether they should accept a debater’s argument then it is up to them to draw their own rebuttals. But there is no way for a debater to respond to the rebuttals of the voters because there is no way for the debaters to know what those rebuttals are. For example, if I make a case that the new healthcare law should be repealed, it is possible that one of the voters saw a news report that said the opposite of what I was arguing. The report might be completely false but if my opponent does not mention it then how would I be expected to answer back to this rebuttal? The obvious answer is that I can’t. Debates are not a public question and answer session; it is an argument between the two participants. The voters have a responsibility to judge a debate based on what the debaters said, not what they would have said had they been in the debate. 2. Debaters are judged by their ability to defend their position. Anyone can make a statement that sounds good, or start reciting facts. The only way to determine that the statements being made are sound is if they are challenged. Facts can easily be wrong, and in some cases made up. Statements that sound good often do because they are based on false premises or logical fallacies. And in many cases the person making these statements are simply repeating what they heard or read somewhere and do not even understand what they are arguing for. If a debater understands an issue then he/she will be able to address any argument that affirms the opposite of their position. A debater that can not address their opponents counter arguments demonstrates that they do not understand the issue being discussed. A strong debater is able to determine what is wrong with any counter argument and communicate that message effectively to the voters. That is what is being judged. Anyone can plagiarize, that doesn’t make them a good debater. 3. Concessions do not necessarily determine the debate I will remind my opponent of the statement I am defending: "You did not address his arguments, that means you concede them. That is how debate works. " Notice that in this statement he specifically states that “you” conceded the unaddressed arguments. He does not state that every debate must be won or lost based on this concept. In fact many arguments in any debate are not adequately addressed, nor is it necessary. Con argues that a person may feel that their best strategy is to spend time making their own arguments rather then refuting their opponents. This is true. I have done this many times. But if I chose to do that, I must be prepared to accept that my opponent’s arguments will be considered true. If I feel my argument is stronger then I will simply have to make it, then explain to the voters why my argument is stronger. For example, I did one debate about whether Obama is a great orator. My opponent made a case that he is not a great orator by describing his tone of voice in his speeches, repetitiveness, hand gestures, etc… I made a counter argument by first defining what a great orator is, then demonstrating how Obama fits into this definition. Technically I conceded my opponents entire case, but it didn’t matter because what I showed was that his case did not affirm the resolution, while mine did. The voters must take the arguments that are still valid at the end of the debate. If arguments are not addressed then they must be applied. Only from there can they decide who made the best argument. Conclusion My opponents “argument” did not make any sense in upholding his position as to why unaddressed arguments should not be considered concessions. Meanwhile I have showed that a debate is between the participants not the voters, and how voters are judged by their ability to defend their views which they can not do if they do not address counter arguments to their position. When it comes to deciding which arguments should be addressed, that is of course a decision made by the debater. A good one will be able to focus on the important aspects of the debate rather then the trivial ones. (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...