The instigator, affirmative or negative, ought to post an oppening argument in the first round

=="I would like to note that Con's R2 post outlines my argument well. The confusion in this very debate was brought about by his failure to provide an opening argument in the first round." Where has either party mentioned confusion? Are you confused? =="Because he failed to provide one in the first round he is obliged to debate the topic as I have seen fit to interpret it." Within the parameters that were agreed upon, we can debate this the way you interpret it. While I did not post a full-on argument, I provided black and white boundaries. Since you agreed to abide by them, your "interpretation" cannot exceed them. =="As we can all clearly see, he has conceded to all points and agrees that the instigator ought to (should) provide an opening argument in his first round." Show me where I said that the instigator "ought" to post an opening argument. If you read the end of my argument from the previous round, you will see that I conceded these to being GOOD things. Never did I say they were NECESSARY elements of a debate. Please stick to the resolution. We are not debating what is encouraged, but what is required. =="I have already won this debate. However, for the sake of argument I will take up the point made by pro using his fallacious definition of 'ought':" Fallacious? In which meaning of the word do you say fallacious? In any case, YOU agreed to debate by my definition. You have nothing to complain about. –adjective 1.containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments. 2.deceptive; misleading: fallacious testimony. 3.disappointing; delusive: a fallacious peace. My opponent then goes on to address authority. First of all, he concedes that the DDO ToS do not prohibit the lack of a first round argument. Voters, please note this. =="Con has readily agreed that the purpose of a debate is for seeking the truth. He also agrees that clarity and the avoidance of confusion are of the utmost importance in seeking truth." Never did I say they were "of the utmost importance." Please stop misquoting me. I simply said they were helpful in achieving truth. Either way you look at it, there is still no obligation here. =="Then it follows that it is the duty of every member on this website to his fellow users to be as clear as possible in his debates." My opponent incorrectly uses "duty" here. There is NO moral obligation here, and certainly not a legal one. Think about it this way: There is a horse riding facility for the mentally disabled down the road. You CAN volunteer to go down there and shovel manure, lead the horses around, and so forth. In fact, your mom encourages you to go volunteer. Would volunteering benefit the kids? Indirectly. Would it benefit the workers? Yes. Would it look good on a resume? Yes. HAVE YOU ANY OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER, LEGAL OR MORAL, TO GO DOWN THERE AND SHOVEL POOP? It is the same way with an opening argument. Would it increase clarity, help the debaters, and help seek truth? Sure. Is there any obligation to post an opening argument? Absolutely not. du-ty;[doo-tee, dyoo-] –noun, plural -ties. 1.something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation. Since my opponent has willingly accepted my definitions of the first round, there are some things he must perform in order to win. He must: 1- Give at least one entity that gives the instigator an obligation to post an opening round 2- Prove why that entity has authority over the instigator If my opponent is unable to achieve both of these, I have won the debate. Good luck in the last round; I had a lot of fun debating you. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...