Fedor Emelianenko is the greatest pound for pound fighter in MMA history

Note on conduct:First of all, I apologize to my opponent for forfeiting the previous round, as I couldn't respond within the 24 hour time limit due to work-related commitments. In fact, I only have ten minutes remaining on my current lunch break before this debate expires in two hours, so this round will have to be brief as well. In retrospect, I shouldn't have agreed to a debate with a 24-hour time limit, but that's my fault. I understand completely if the voters wish to award the "conduct" category to my opponent, but I hope I can still win the "spelling & grammer," "sources," and "arguments" categories.Rebuttal arguments:1. Level of competitionMy opponent fairly pointed out that the opinion of Anderson Silva's manager might be biased, but that wasn't the only source I cited in arguing that Silva has faced better competition than Emelianenko. I also cited Sports Illustrated's Tim Marchman, who conducted a comprehensive study of both fighters and concluded that, overall, both fighters had a comparable level of competition, given that Emelianenko had "padded" his win/loss record against so many weak fighters. [1] My opponent then cited Bas Rutten's opinion as a "neutral party," but his appraisal of Fedor's talents (1) had nothing to do with Fedor's level of competition, (2) didn't say anything about Anderson Silva or his level of competition, and (3) was given before Fedor's recent 3-match losing streak.2. Who wins more convincinglyMy opponent argues that Emelianenko is a better fighter because he defeats his opponents "at their own game," but this doesn't say much. Having the ability to win in a variety of different ways doesn't necessarily make Fedor a better fighter than Silva, as my opponent doesn't consider the possibility that Fedor is merely a "jack of all trades, but master of none."Why should Anderson Silva be penalized for beating people at "his game?" Silva wins so easily that he often toys with his opponents by dropping his arms and daring them to throw punches. If you were having that much fun winning, why would you change your fight style?3. Silva beat an opponent that later knocked out EmelianenkoHere, my opponent was really grasping for excuses. First of all, the testerone replacement therapy is a moot point, because Henderson has acknowledged in media interviews that he was on testosterone therapy well before he fought Silva. To the extent that this therapy might have posed a competitive disadvantge for Fedor, it applied equally to Silva, and Silva obviously didn't have an issue with it. Secondly, while "MMAth" might not be irrefutable proof that certain fighters are better than others, the inescapable fact is that Henderson is the only common opponent between Silva and Emelianenko, and voters can draw their own conclusions about the fact that Silva won and Emelianenko lost.Finally, the fact that Emelianenko let a 40-year old opponent knock him out in the first round with an uppercut wasn't "lucky;" it was sloppy. One-punch knockouts happen all the time in MMA, and a failure to defend against such punches is highly relevant in determining how good a fighter actually is.4. Silva has gotten better with ageWhat is more impressive - the fact that a fighter became world champion at age 27, or the fact that a fighter remains a world champion at age 36? Clearly the latter. Any decent fighter in the prime of his physical conditioning can be a champion, but it takes a truly elite fighter to make nine consecutive title defenses into his late 30s. That testifies to Silva's unprecedented level of skill and experience, rather than his natural gifts. My opponent might as well be arguing that Mike Tyson (the world's youngest heavyweight champion boxer) was a greater boxer than Muhammed Ali, which is clearly a preposterous claim. To the extent that Emelianenko may have "lost the motivation to be a top level fighter" at 33, his legacy as a fighter should be penalized accordingly. Sources:[1] See my second source from round 2.