Semantics Debate: Sports cars are better than Smart Cars

Before I begin my argument, I would like to remind spectators of Pro’s rule made during round 1. “vote for whoever used semantics the most awesomely”. I will prove, in this final round, why this irrefutably means that Con has won this debate. Ladies and gents, this debate really boils down to two main issues, and I will explain why these issues fall in side Con’s favor. 1. Is side Pro’s definition of “Smart Car” a legitimate one? This is an important issue because this debate is based on semantics, and if I can successfully prove that Pro’s definition is not a valid one, I can rely on my irrefutable argument made during round 3. So why does Con’s definition fall? Because, again, if you look at the definition Con has provided, it states- “The Smart Fortwo is a rear-engined two-seater microcar manufactured by Smart GmbH, introduced at the 1998 Paris Motor Show as the Smart City Coupe, and currently in its second generation.” The problem is apparent; Pro is trying to define the term “Smart Car” with the term “Smart ForTwo”. Pro recognizes this and tries to defend his definition by pointing out that the definition is headed under the term “Smart Car”, however, his argument is not valid; it only makes his source a definition of “Smart ForTwo” headed under “Smart Car”. Therefore, Pro’s definition is invalid, making all of his arguments invalid. Since this effectively means that only side Con has made a valid argument, the resolution falls. 2. Is the Honda CRX a sports car? This question is important because it forms the basis of side proposition’s rebuttals. Pro believes the Honda CRX to be a valid example of a sports car though he concedes that it is technically a sport compact, saying that a sport compact is a “type of sports car”. This argument falls because a sport compact is actually not a type of sports car, according to car classification, compact cars and sports cars fall under separate categories [1]. Therefore, a sport compact is actually not a type of sports car; it’s a crossover between sports cars and compact cars. Because of this, my opponent’s rebuttals have no basis and therefore fall. I have already shown why affordability and gas mileage could be considered “attractive” during the third round, therefore, my arguments stand. ===POINT ALLOCATION===Finally, I would like to explain how I see the votes should be allocated. I believe ‘conduct’ falls Con. Pro accuses me of using semantics in the first round, when I clearly explained why defining terms is not a semantic argument. Not only has Pro ignored my arguments several times throughout the debate, he has also set up the debate so that he would be able to define all the key terms, which is an obvious advantage in a semantic debate. For dealing with Pro’s abuse of debate structure and dismissive attitude, Con should get conduct. I believe ‘convincing arguments’ falls Con. During round 1, Pro clearly states “vote for whoever used semantics the most awesomely”. However, throughout the debate, Pro has only ever made one semantic argument based on the definition of better, whereas Con has used semantic arguments several times. Therefore, the convincing arguments point falls to con by Pro’s own definition. Also, I’d like to point out that though it is true that I have not refuted Pro’s arguments, I do not need to as explained earlier, my own arguments are enough to negate the resolution. I believe spelling and grammar and sourcing are equal. I thank MartianShark for the interesting debate. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...