LD is better than PFD

(and for his clarification, I am a male) So for maximum clarity and convenience, I will follow the same structure My opponent has taken, going Con then Pro. And with however many characters I have left, I will be summarizing the debate thus far. Con- So first of all before I get into the contentions, I would like to point out that my opponent does not attack my observations, and therefore concedes them to be true. We have also thankfully agreed on the definitions that I have provided. So semantic arguments will not be a problem in this debate as we have these consensual definitions. Contention 1: Choice of debate style is entirely opinionated- My opponent actually concedes this point at first, but then makes the claim that LD is a more likable style of debate and thus more people would prefer it. However let's look at a couple of points on this attack for a moment. First, this attack is entirely contradictory with their prior statement in which they concede that debate style is entirely opinionated. Second, my opponent's claims regarding LD being more enjoyable, and of the majority preferring LD are statements of fact, meaning the must warrant this claim with some kind of empirical evidence for us to be able to accept this claim. Contention 2: PFD gives debaters the opportunity to debate many more topics than LD permits- First of all my opponent concedes to the base idea here, but says that more topics is not necessarily a good thing. He says that since LD debaters get more time to debate a topic, they learn it much better then PFD debaters learn the PFD topic. Now to this we see the Con is still winning on this point, as one style of debate has a benefit the other does not; and vice versa. This means they should be valued at the same level here, and points out that LD is not better than PFD. Second, My opponent asks that question of how I can say that LD topics are not political, but then shortly after concedes that I'm right there's nothing political about them. So vote for me here. .. . .. But all joking aside here, the point is that while these topics may sound political in nature, the is far from that, but that in an LD debate round you do not debate the political aspect of these topics, but the Values aspect of them. Meaning that while PFD you get to debate topics political in nature like The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation, or North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran the topic you debate in LD are over the value aspect. Contention 3: PFD teaches kids teamwork- First of all my opponent is misconstruing the intent of my attack here, when I say teamwork it is incredibly obvious by the text supporting this contention what I mean here. Where as my opponent defaults to referring to the debate squad as a whole. In my prior speech I talk about how in PFD you work together to build the arguments that you would run together as a team and thus build teamwork. Second, the opening thoughts to this attack make the assumption that the school I went to had some huge debate program, when in all actuality our squad consisted of three people. Myself as the only LD debater, and a CX team; The CX team worked together all the time, and knew how to argue as a Team whereas LD did not teach me that skill. therefore the type of team work my opponent is advocating is inherent and will exist either way. Closing thoughts- My opponent makes a fallacious statement. Trough my observations, I point out that my burden is not prove PFD above LD, but simply to prove that LD is not better than PFD. While on the inverse it is my opponent's job to prove that LD is better that PFD. The basis of his argument here is founded on a fallacy he interprets, therefore this goes not attacked. Now with the Con stance defended I will not move onto my opponent's argumentation Contention 1- Value debate teaches you to argue over the philosophy and ethics rather than all evidence like policy. First, off this has no negative impacts for me as the realm of this debate is concerning PFD not Policy Second, LD is limited in that regard because you cannot actually argue evidence like in PFD; you can only use is as a tool to strengthen the claim on a Contention. Third, since PFD debate is actually designed to be a mesh between Policy and LD there exists abundantly that philosophical, and ethical nature my opponent claims does not exist in PFD Finally, My opponent never warrants why arguing over facts and evidence is a bad thing; therefore we actually see this on the inverse as saying LD is less because it does not have this arguing over facts and evidence Contention 2- LD teaches Philosophy First off, I want to extend my prior point that PFD was created to be a mesh between LD an CX, therefore not only can you can still learn this philosophy; but you learn it in such a way as so you can explain it to other people in plain English. You don't have to worry about all of the jargon that encompasses using this Philosophy in an LD debate Second, while I agree that knowing, and being able to argue philosophy is a very good thing, LD is limited in that you must argue only logic and philosophy. Even if one wanted to bring an empirical evidence based argument into a round, they would be unable to if it did not have a link to the cases value premise. Third, My opponent does not warrant why debating a style of debate that encompasses so much jargon and philosophical philanthropy is a good thing. When you're out of high school and you plan on doing something normal with your life, being able to talk, explain something, or convince some-one of something in every-day plain English is a far more beneficial skill than being able to discuss philosophy in a barely understandable jargon that's legitimate within only a small group Contention 3-LD debate also has a historical presence to the U. S First, History is created every single day. We an look back to y2k and we see that's closer to us than Thomas Jefferson. Yet is is still considered history. Second, The real impact claim here for my opponent is that LD debate maintains certain cultural aspects of american history (which really isn't true as what LD currently is has very little to with he Lincoln-Douglas debates. Third, since we now see that the real impact of this contention is on Cultural aspects, PFD more astutely hold true to the United States culture in this modern day because of how it was formed, the debate style's execution, and the subject matter in which you debate. And so again to my closing arguments. First off I extend my previous closing arguments as they are still applicable since my opponent never refuted them. LD and PFD are still two flavors of the same thing. Debate. therefore it is still an utter fallacy to say one is better than the other. But now I will extend this to point out that all points on the Con side are still standing, whereas no point on the Pro side has been upheld I thank you all and again ask for a Con ballot. I hand the debate back over to my very capable opponent.