The Great Wall of China is in China. (The one that seperated them from Mongolians.)

So my opponent is very passionate in trying to prove that the Great Wall of China is outside of China, as I have learned. This debate was fun, but it's time to wrap up now. ====== Contents ====== I. Wikipedia reliability II. Arguments -Geography -Defense System -Building III. Dropped Arguments IV. Conclusion -Summary -Voting Issues -Final Remarks _________________________________________________________________________________________________ ============== I. Wikipedia Reliability ============== My opponent is continuing to fester me about the reliability of Wikipedia, and the times I used it were all in reference to the Great Wall or the Cuban Missile crisis. He bypasses all argumentation by this method, and fails to realize how problematic this is for him. First, he fails to realize that the articles he sited are 1) (the first two) are dated 2006 and 2007, referring to previous months, and 2) Wikipedia. Second, in round 3, I made the reference to the fact that all Wikipedia articles (or at least, the ones I used) had significant external references to verify them. The reason I said his claim was childish was because it evaded arguments; it is not a false claim, and doesn't cost me a conduct point at all. If he really believes the information I provided was false anyways, he would've provided a more reliable source providing more reliable information, but seeing as he failed to do so we have to look to the information I provided to vote in this round. ========= II. Arguments ========= -Geography Again, my opponent's only refutation was in regards to the reliability of Wikipedia. I'll provide another source for an atlas, and that would win me the argument. I'm still not sure why he has so much of a problem. So, here we are. [1] I actually provided this source earlier to further verify my geographical numbers, but he failed to see that. The geography argument, my opponent conceded, is sufficient to vote, so I already urge a pro vote. Anyways, moving on. -Defense System My opponent calls me out on a contradiction by saying "You contradict yourself with you calculator/pocket statement here, in which you say '...put (the calculator) into the pocket of my jeans pocket, more than half of it remain outside the pocket. But, at the same time, it would still be considered "in" my pocket." So this arguement is invalid and my example still stands." There is no contradiction, because the calculator was being used to explain the validity of my "one point inside the domain" argument, but the missile analogy was used to show that only certain types of defense would be place outside of the country; a wall wouldn't be. Sorry if I worded the argument poorly. -Building I never put words into his mouth; I analyzed his argument for him, which he failed to do. The reason I did so was to point out the flaw in the argument. I'll repost it the segment of the paragraph from my round 3, with everything in quotes being what I quoted from my opponent. --- My opponent refutes my claims in two ways. First, he says that "They would not have to send warriors to protect the builders, because they do not need to expand the wall if they so chose." Is it just me or is that a non-sequitur? Let's take this apart. "They do not need to expand the wall if they so chose." My opponent's claim is that they DID expand the wall and built it OUTSIDE OF China. Hmm. "They would not have to send warriors to protect the builders" for that fallacious reason. Last time I checked, if I'm a builder in the bronze age, I wouldn't be adequately equipped to fight off a barbarian horde with my primitive hammer. That's the first problem with the wall being truly "outside" of China. The second, he says that "if they were building outside the wall, they would not be building in barbarian territory, because it would be considered theirs because they're COMMUNIST." Okay, to my opponent, I'm a communist, I want your house. Thanks... That made a lot of sense. That's not what communism is [1] first off, and second, Communism was developed by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels, who, I hope my opponent agrees, were born WAY after China could ever have been classified as communist. [6] [7] [8] Finally, he agrees that it would be costly to transport equipment but disagrees that they would go as far as hundreds of miles past their country, but then fails to realize that workers had to walk all along the Great wall to build it which is THOUSANDS of miles long. My opponent has a lot of work to do here. --- That is what my opponent was referring to; he failed to win the argument, another reason to vote pro. He didn't address any of what I said, but continued to be childly evasive as he let his emotions take hold of him as was evident in his final paragraph. =============== III. Dropped Arguments =============== To my opponent's and my dismay, evasiveness by ad hominem and credibility attacks aren't debate. In his round 4, all he does is CLAIM that: I make contradictions, use invalid sources, and used bad conduct in my arguments. No argumentation whatsoever. So, You look to my round 3 and 4 for the real substantive debate and see that I am, in fact, winning- both prima facie and on an analytical level. ========= IV. Conclusion ========= -Summary My opponent wished to argue a ridiculous viewpoint on a rather unarguable resolution, and allowed his emotions to get the best of him by the end of the debate. He failed to be argumentative in round 4, which cost him both the arguments and my respect (and possibly some of the readers). He reverted to blatantly cussing at me (i.e. ad hominem) that was unwarranted, but I apologize on his behalf- they have called this website drama.org a few times for that reason. -Voting Issues Spelling and Grammar: In all honesty, me. Here's a quote from my opponent: "You contradict yourself with you calculator/pocket statement here, in which you say"... That should say, "You contradict yourself with *YOUR*..." +1 point pro Conduct: No need to review it. He cussed at me, and failed to debate in round 4. Moreoever, he tried to win the conduct point because I called his evasive argument "childish", so technically he was trying to cheat whatever points he could out of the voters. He doesn't even deserve that one point; +1 point pro. More Convincing Arguments: That is up to the judges. In all honesty, though, my opponent wasn't analytical enough to earn these points. But, again, this is the judges' discretion. More Reliable Sources: My opponent would argue that I provided unreliable sources, but again, look to the analysis of the reliability argument to determine the winner of these 2 points. Again, up to the judges. -Final Remarks I apologize to the readers that the debate took the course that it did. I wish that it could have been different, but the past has happened, and all we can do is try to learn from our mistakes. As for my opponent; a wise man (Abraham Lincoln) once said "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday." [2] One of my favorite quotes. Try to learn from this debate, and help us filter out the emotion from this website. Thank you to my opponent for a debate that was intriguing to say the least; thank you to the readers and judges for your time. Happy voting :) _________________________________________________________________________________________________ ====== SOURCES ====== [1] http://www.infoplease.com... [2] http://www.brainyquote.com...