Debaters in this site should more vote for acetraveler in those 2 debates.

I appreciate you accept my challenge. I don't understand 'I will address both debates.'. Anyway, it is not a serious problem in this debate, so I start my reply. 1. 'Manner' in those two debates. : Of course, My English is still little. So I can more easily accept your point related to this part than the other parts. Of course I will practice more writings. But, I want more detail example related to my debate from you because I think Biowza and Brian eggleston showed proper replies related to my opinion that I had predicted during the debate. This mean they did not have special trouble to understand my writings, and they did not have misinterpretation related to my opinion. In addition, if they cannot understand my words, they should have asked to me, and if they have misinterpretation related to my words, I should have pointed out the mistake. I can show you this process did well finished by displaying the example. (ex)In his or her response, my opponent wrote: 'I can't exactly understand 'English-only debates will give those less able to speak English an extra incentive to learn.' Please allow me to elaborate. The type of young people who join debating societies are usually very intelligent and destined to become people with influence and elevated social positions. They may become politicians, captains of industry, scientists, military officers, or they may join one of the professions. Whatever career path they follow, however, in whatever country they live and work, they are likely to need to speak good English. 2. 'Matter' in the Debate 1 Please elaborate on 'When making your rebuttal, you questioned your opponent's pure logic'. And, Did I suggest no evidence? No. I told him round 4 like this by using his evidence. : ' Kilogram- is equal to the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram, it is also almost exactly equal to one liter of water. Celsius- Temperature scale whereby 0 degrees is the freezing point of water and 100 degrees is the boiling point of water. This is the example that you showed me and you say it is the evidence metric system have more reasonable. But, originally Meter is based on 1/40000000 of the meridian line. The definition of meter in your example appeared later because of making more accurate system. In addition, yard can also be defined again by using the speed of light to pursue more accurate system. Just, metric system appeared more faster and widely used in the world, to the frankly speaking, it have no logical reasons metric system is more advanced system than the imperial system. What on earth 1/299,792,458 and 1/40000000 are not random definition also? Then, pound also can be defined again by using new 'yard' and using water. So, kilogram are also random choice by scientists in the past time. Celsius are also the same thing in this aspect. Do you still argue metric system are not a random choice like imperial system?' Like this way, no matter how he show me much evidence, I showed him the evidence have a week power to support his argument like this way, plus, I use his evidence to support my argument, so if I had not failed in this process, my logic can have power of persuasion. 3. 'Matter' in debate 2 Please elaborate on 'You never fully refuted your opponent's points about using English, as you admitted that some English is necessary, agreeing with him, and didn't realize that he was saying you CAN'T use two different languages in debate.'. And, 'he provided examples of why using English is better.'. I also agree this. But, I also showed him why simultaneous interpretaters are useful like this. : ' I admit English language has the ability to promote international understanding. But I don't agree that would not otherwise be possible. In your example, your friend and participants of meetings can use English at least the appropriate level in the meeting. But, If they also have the appropriate level of the Swiss and Turkish or they can be helped by well-trained simultaneous interpreters, do you really think other languages would not possible to promote international understanding? Of course English Users in the other worlds can be more hard to understand and access the outcomes of the meetings, but the Swiss and Iranians who are the interested parties but who have English relatively short can be more understand and access more easily the outcomes of the meeting so international understanding can be also improved in the aspects. In addition, when simultaneous interpreters be allowed to participate in the Championships, they can also translate English to their mother tongue and this situation can be also filmed to videos so non-English users around the world can also have no special obstacles to understand whole debate, and international understanding can be more improved more than English-only to be allowed in the Championships.' 4. 'Method' in Debate 1. 'Your opponent showed a better debating skill by using logic and reason, and also because you failed to refute his points.' No, he shows many examples, but I had direct opposes completely against his example, but often, he could only refute my analogy partially. I can show you the example next round, In addition, he declared his point in round 5 : -My opponent agrees with me that the metric system is a more logical system -I have demonstrated that the switch needs to be made for unity, for safety (due to dangerous mix-ups caused by dual systems), and for logical reasons that one system is clearly superior to the other (a point which, as I have said, my opponent agrees with me on) So, I also declare my point in round 5 : 1. I don't agree that the metric system is a more logical system. Although if I agree, my opposition are not damaged because I already point out the trouble by changing standards. 2. 'I have demonstrated that the switch needs to be made for unity, for safety' But, He did not more consider 'the side effects of changing standards like the cost of changing USA science textbooks, complexity of scientists and students who want to be the scientists who already learned by using old-type science textbooks who already skilled to use two systems of measurements, and so many other things that can set back of the level of USA science.' and many other my proper questions. IN A NUTSHELL, The main purpose of standards of units is improving convenience for people. We should not forget this thing. Changing standards should be considered more carefully. Do you really think I really failed to refute his points? 5. Method in Debate 2 Please show me an example. It is your argument so you have the charge of prove it more detail in the current situation. THEN, I'll wait your reply.