"There aren't 360 Degrees in a Circle"

As this is the last round, I will try and summarize the debate.What was the debate about?The resolution of the debate, as well as the original argument that my opponent put in the 1st round clearly implies that we are discussing the degrees in the central angle of a circle. It makes no sense to assume that we are discussing the internal degrees of a circle because of two reasons:1. The usage of the phrase "360 degrees in a Circle" is always in the context of the central angle.When one says "There are 360 degrees in a Circle", or "There are X degrees in that particular arc" or "There are X degrees in that particular section of a Circle", one always implies that he is talking about the central angle. There is no reason to think that one is talking about internal angles. For instance, if you look up this phrase on Google, all of the sources, at least in the initial pages, will refer to the central angle. [1] The meaning of this phrase is simply accepted and consistently used throughout the context of Geometry and regular speech, i.e. "He did a 360 on his skateboard".My opponent is simply using definitions and meanings which are completely unjustified. He has, during this whole debate, starting on Round 2, talked about internal angles, completely ignoring my rebuttals that internal angles are completely irrelevant to the debate. It is cheating and unjust behaviour if during the debate you are suddenly turning the topic upside-down without explicitly noting in Round 1 that you will be talking about internal angles.I therefore ask voters to ignore my opponent's arguments, which were based on internal angles, because they are irrelevant, and my rebuttals were completely dropped and not once contested.2. It is not obvious that Circles are regular polygons.While a mathematician might certainly refer to a circle as a polygon, this characterization is by no means obvious, and not necessarily true, because it results in some geometrical paradoxes relating to curvature. One should by no means assume, finding a debate on circles, that this debate will require the assumption that a circle is a polygon, especially if that is not clearly stated in the 1st Round by the instigator.I am aware that I did not contest this assumption, on the grounds that internal angles were irrelevant to the debate anyways. However, this is still another reason why this debate should have been about central angles, not internal angles. I therefore also ask the voters to take this into account.---These two reasons explain why the constant jumping between different definitions of the words in the Resolution, as well as conflation of terms was completely unjustified, non-obvious and a red herring.Note that my opponent never provided any argumentation based on the central angle of a circle, which he should have, since that's what was expected of him during this debate.Summary of ArgumentsI have provided three constructive arguments during this debate:1. Argument from the definition of a Degree.2. Argument from the mathematical relation between Radians and Degrees.3. Argument from a straight angle.My opponent tried to contest Argument 1, however, he clearly failed in constructing a good rebuttal, because he was assuming that the arbitrary nature of a degree was somehow relevant to the debate. I have successfully shown that this is not the case. He still continued repeating different variations of the same argument, completely failing to address my rebuttals.My opponent tried to contest Argument 2 by stating some vague observations about how my proof was unsound. I challenged him to provide clear and specific examples, showing where I went wrong. He didn't do that and completely dropped that argument.My opponent conceded that a straight angle has 180 degrees. I used this fact in order to construct my third argument, where I simply added two straight angles to produce a full circle. My opponent never contested that argument.To conclude, I would like to ask voters to recognize the fact that these arguments were dropped or never adequately contested during the course of this debate. Therefore, I would maintain that I have successfully defended my case, and that I therefore have met my Burden of Proof.Last Round RebuttalsMy opponent completely ignored my concerns about the relevancy of internal angles to this debate, and he still chose to use the final round for the discussion of internal angles. Since he never actually addressed my earlier rebuttals, I will simply declare his arguments as yet another argumentum ad nauseam. [2] I could certainly go on showing how his thoughts about internal angles do not make sense in the context of circles. I could also show that his disbelief in the fact that "any number x infinity equals infinity" is unsound and that his use of Mathematics during this debate has been thoroughly and fundamentally flawed. However, since all of his arguments are simply based on internal angles, I will continue to ask voters to look through my earlier rebuttals as references, since they were never addressed.Vote CON!Sources:[1] https://www.google.co.uk...[2] http://rationalwiki.org...