PRO should have won this debate.

It appears that I am no longer against the wit of Logical-Master, but rather of dr_logic. A. Price 1. My opponent's logic is flawed. Why would "bad sportsmanlike behavior" be on the list if it would only encompass the rest of the list? It's purpose is to stand for everything not mentioned in the list that would qualify as "bad sportsmanlike behavior." My opponent argues that the Contender always has the last word. This is true; however, this only adds more responsibility on the Contender not to abuse this position. Typing up a brand new argument that is impossibe to refute at all would be poor sportsmanlike behavior. For example, take this debate: http://www.Debate.org... Would it be sportsmanlike for PRO to string along the first argument for the entire debate, only to switch back to an expected argument regarding the U.S. Constitution in the very last round? This would deprive CON of any fair chance of victory, which is poor sportsmanlike behavior. The same can apply here. 2. She dropped it when she said "Point: Con." By acknowledging that if her argument was acceptable, she would win the contested point, she admits that without turning the tables unfairly, she would lose it. 3. The advantage of having an extra round of argumentation is what balances out the general "last word" advantage. However, this does not justify an entirely new argument by the Contender, as it would completely upset the balance, and it would be nearly impossible for any Instigator to win. Ever. B. Controller 1. My opponent assumes that because the 360 controller can be "shown by argument" to be better than the Wiimote, it is inherently better. However, anything can be shown by argument to be superior to another. In any one debate, multiple arguments are put forward to show by argument how one thing is better than another. 2. My opponent cites a 360 remote. For one thing, CON showed absolutely no awareness that such a thing existed, and should have sourced the page to receive credit. For another, the Wiimote is still superior to the 360 remote, as it has motion-sensor ability, while the 360 remote does not. The 360 remote is merely a bulky, awkward remote when used for 360 games designed for standard controllers, so it would not add anything to the 360 by itself at all, from the argumentation presented in the debate. C. The Market 1. She had to admit that price did matter to claim the very first point. 2. My opponent chooses to appeal to the video game reviewers' "expertise." Well, seeing as the people aren't actually listening to these uncited reviewers who supposedly favor the 360, maybe they're not all they're cracked up to be. Additionally, while the people may consider the opinions of reviewers, the opinions of the people are the ones that actually matter, as contended. D. Playability My opponent ignores the Wii games that are on the list of top games. Access to the world's greatest games is a very fine point of the Wii, and deserves credit, as access to games is a quality of a system that would put it above a system that lacks it. My opponent asks about the 360's media access, and why he can't argue with it. The reason is because in the debate, CON never argued with it. CON should not get credit on what she never even hinted at in the debate. F. Dropped Arguments 1a. It was not expressed as a personal opinion. It was expressed as a fact, that some people held a certain opinion. 1b. In Round 2, PRO said: "Furthermore, you have admitted that most players do enjoy using the Wiimote." This statement was derived from the statement my opponent quoted from CON. CON had no comment on PRO's statement, making it a dropped argument. She dropped the argument, and therefore conceded it. Denying its existence does nothing. 2. My opponent seems to be deviating from CON's original point, that "both systems offer games with health benefits and yet only the Wii has been known to cause damage or injury." He switches CON's argument to saying that the Wii offers risk with health benefits, while the 360 stays away from the physical activity almost entirely. This misinterpretation has no bearing on the debate being discussed. People are obviously aware of the risks. They are displayed whenever the Wii is turned on, and stay for a few seconds, in which one has nothing better to do than read them. My opponent claims that the 360 lacks health risks, contradicting CON's argument that the 360 contains equal health benefits with less health risks, which is in itself false as it is a rather extreme argument out of silence, as explained in Round 1 of this debate. 3. My opponent only contests that there are 1-on-1 games on the 360. He claims that this is common knowledge, despite the fact that I can only name two. What very few people would know is whether or not it is true that "The 360 has just as many 'Best Games' on the Best Game's top 10 list than the Wii," especially when the Best Game's top 10 list isn't even cited. The sources are very lacking. The controllers are unsourced, the games are unsourced, practically the entire argument is unsourced. G. Re-Cap 1. The same rule does apply to every debate, with the sole exception of 1-round debates, although those are oddballs of debating. Bad sportsmanlike behavior is implied to be any behavior that a fair sportsman would find to be bad, such as taking cheap shots through new arguments in the last round. 2. It was never said that sources were involved. The argument was made in the last round without any sources whatsoever. 3. It's still not much of a re-cap. 4. CON's source wasn't being used for its game list, but for its mentioning of performance and graphics. CON never referred back to the source for its games. Sources are not just big tack-ons of "everything on this source is to be treated as an argument by me in this debate." H. Conclusion Conduct: Cheap shots (last-round arguments) are considered poor behavior by sportsmen. PRO's new arguments aren't even cheap shots in the sense that CON's are. My opponent has done nothing to show new arguments made by CON in the last round are a part of DDO, only arguments in general. "New" is the key word here. Arguments are tolerated gladly; new ones are not. Sources: PRO's sources proved PRO's arguments a great deal. They were used to demonstrate the Wii's low price [1.1], great variety of accessories [1.2], ability to use standard controllers in addition to unique ones [2.1], additional accessories upon buying the Wii [2.7] (dropped argument, really), most popular game sales [2.10], most popular console sales [2.11], health benefits [2.12], whiteboad ability [2.13], great one-player games (which CON initially challenged the existence of) [3.3], and complete domination of top games ever [4.1-2]. While the entire points may not all go to PRO, the sub-points argued with the sources were proven, thus deserving the Sources point over CON. Arguments: The 6-0 was a reference to the 3 from Arguments, 2 from Sources, and 1 from Conduct. As the Wii had a lower price (+1), greater variety of real controllers (+1), more market-playing (+1), and access to better games (+1), but worse graphics (-1), the Wii would have won Arguments, 4-1. The dropped arguments were actually minor points that impact the entire debate as a whole. My opponent reminds everybody that he wins in case of a tie. That is true. However, one must also remember that if Conduct and Sources are a given in one side, but Arguments may be split at some percentage, then the one side is considered the victor. Thank you, L-M (or dr_logic), for this debate. Good luck.