Second place is more valuable than first.

Man Its so much easier when points are labeled clearly, it really isn't that hard to follow even after I set up numbered and lettered points, oh well. 1. So my opponent still clings to the framework he tried to set up that we should evaluate pre-race to determine which "advantage" was most important. Also he still says that winning isn't key to determining the value of first and second place. a. The framework my opponent sets up is inherently flawed. Evaluating first and second place before the race cannot be done. If the debate is to evaluate second place and first place the race must be completed before evaluating the past; not speculating on the future. b. The next portion of the framework is to determine advantages. I have agreed to this point that advantages are a key factor to winning this debate. But winning still is the greatest advantage that outweighs all others. Everything centers around winning, winning is associated with first place, losing is associated with second or lower. So you need to know the full facts before making the decision not before the race even begins. Overview Counter- My opponent says I only have defensive arguments, which is a waste of time to argue because if you look at the arguments you will find I have almost all offense. The whole debate I have attacked his resolution and the absurdity of his arguments. Also I have attacked the fact that he has no single shred of credible arguments all these arguments are are whiney arguments as a means of defense. All he has done this round is try to avoid the biggest argument over winning = 1st place. 2. My opponent still believes that if people will it a team can win regardless of skill or talent. Then introduces a website which I will attack. a. This argument is something that has no merit or for that matter a practical means of proof. Even if everyone was to vote for the underdog the team itself wouldn't even know because the game would be like everyother game fans yelling and people going crazy. b. For those of you who actually read through the website it is a website devoted to explaining how people come up with odds for gambling. It goes on to talk about the underdog and how its rankings are found. The site even concedes that the most glory will come from those who win, which is my argument for advantage debate. 3. This argument my opponent advocates that people ahead get cocky and lose. Also that the Patriots got cocky and lost. a. People in the lead do get confidence like I have previously stated. But as my opponent ignored I also have proven that it doesn't affect their performance which Ill get to in the next portion of the argument. b. My opponent is trying to advocate that because the Patriots lost the super bowl because they got cocky and lost. Examining week 17 of the 2007 season, the Patriots won 38-35. This was a 3 point game, it was close and could have gone either way with a touchdown. The super bowl the giants won 17-14, yet another 3 point game. The fact was both these teams were evenly matched and the games could have gone either way. The fact of the matter was that it happened to be the Giants day not the Patriots, skill won. 4. My opponent says that although it hasn't happened yet my friend will crack and people expect you to fail. a. The fact of the matter is that being in first does not guarantee yourself to fail. I'm going into my senior year next year and we have 18 people still with 4.0 and in AP classes. The point is that with hard work anyone can take the glory of first place. Also as a side note my lacrosse team is now 8-0 as of yesterday. b. This new link is referring to a team that won over another. You claim to have empirical proof but all this is is an article from a local newspaper in Ireland by an author that thinks nothing of the skill levels. No matter what the game comes down to skill you could think that you might win or lose all day but with out skill to back it up it is worthless. Disregard this opinion, not empirical evidence. 5. Now he says that it is not valid it is based on winning. a. This is a totally valid argument if you look back to my prior argument in the other round and this one. Like I have been advocating winning is the ultimate advantage that outweighs all others, since my opponent still hasn't got this vote him down. 6. Cross apply 3. a. Like I said you cant cross apply arguments when each argument is its each individual argument, its just lazy to do so. b. There is incentive to improve because if the first place team doesn't constantly improve they will lose so they have to work harder to maintain that lead in front of the other. There are no advantages in this argument. You receive feedback regardless of what place you come in thats what coaching is. Also that both teams have to work to maintain first place. 7. Not even worth talking about because it was a joke argument to begin with. To come to a conclusion you will vote CON because my opponent still hasn't figured out that winning is the ultimate advantage and he ignores anything to do with this advantage the entire round. I have proven that there are no advantages to coming in second place that first place still doesn't receive. Also since I have proven that you cannot evaluate first and second place until the race is finished and my opponent has not successfully proven why we shouldn't. Thank you for you time, and thank you astrosfan for this debate.