RESOLVED: Wrestling (High School), as a sport, best prepares one for spontaneous combat

Alas, once again, the vast majority of my opponent's argument is yet again starry-eyed. ~Counterarguments~ "Spontaneous combat WILL devolve into a ground fight. Of course it will start in a standing position, but eventually someone will grab his opponent, and from there any skill in punching is clearly useless." --> This is a nice claim my opponent made, BUT he hasn't proved why spontaneous combat will devolve into a ground fight. I have argued in the second round that it generally does NOT, given your average person. Most people are familiar and comfortable with throwing punches, since it's the easiest way of fighting there is. He hasn't refuted my reasons, and thus my assertion that spontaneous combat usually is standing up prevails. Also, make it a note that even if his argument were to be true, and spontaneous combat WILL eventually go into a ground fight, I have proven adequately that a MMA fighter specialized in not only wrestling but BJJ and ground-and-pound fighting will be superior on a real ground game fight than a wrestler. 1. Technique "The wrestler, again, is superior to the MMA fighter in ground to ground combat. The wrestler only trains in the art of ground to ground combat, and the MMA fighter has weakened his ability to combat on the ground due to over spreading his practices." --> I have adequately shown why a MMA fighter specialized in wrestling and BJJ, even perhaps Sambo or Judo, has a much greater range and capabilities. While it may be true that a wrestler will be better than a MMA fighter at wrestling, he is not prepared to defend from submission holds like armbars or chokes. He is not prepared to face fists from top. A MMA fighter is, and this is why he will excel over the wrestler on the ground. Of course, my opponent did NOT account for the stand up game, where both fighters will face toe to toe using fists, kicks, and knees. A wrestler specializes in none of these categories, while a MMA fighter is comfortable and assertive in these areas as well. "My opponent also states several times that a wrestler is not used to practices such as choking, punching, elbowing, and breaking limbs such as the arm. I would like to remind the voters that although the wrestler practices a much more safe sport, he is still capable of submissions. Although I couldn't say for sure that a wrestler could break one's arm given the chance, he could and definitely would put the MMA fighter into various positions that render him immobile, such as cradles." --> It doesn't matter whether or not MMA is safe, in fact this is what perhaps makes it more deadly. With such a wide variety of extremely effective techniques, the wrestler as I've stated before CAN NOT account for these moves, and thus will be caught blind by it. My opponent has walked around this main point every round, because he realizes that it's the truth. 2. Physical Performance The entirety of my opponent's argument is starry-eyed, and Hollywood-ish. He has failed to refute my point about how since a MMA fighter has to prepare for longer fights and more diverse fighting areas, he has to generally prepare MORE. MORE endurance, MORE resistance training, MORE technique, and MORE time in the gym. 3. Determination AGAIN, very wishy washy and lacking in substance. He fails to show why wrestlers are determined, and MMA fighters are not. As I've shown in my previous argument, MMA fighters have to go through grueling workouts, and undetermined people will fail. ~Conclusion~ The entirety of my opponent's argument is lacking in any operation definition. He fails to show why wrestlers are more determined than MMA fighters, or any other person. He fails on his argument about Physical Performance, because I have shown why MMA fighters need to prepare MORE than a wrestler due to the nature of MMA fighting. And finally, he has dropped almost all his points about technique, and the ones he sustained are empty claims with no reasoning nor evidence backing it up. If you have followed along this debate clearly, then the clear win is CON.