All unadressed arguments in a debate should be considered concessions

Cons Example My opponent begins his last round by asserting that all he has to do is show one example in one debate of an argument that is not considered a concession, and he wins this debate. This assertion is based off one word in the title resolution, completely disregarding everything else that was stated in round one before he accepted. Although this is a highly semantical argument (strictly forbidden in the rules), I will not bother to address this point beyond that because Con has utterly failed to accomplish what he claims he has. I would like to remind the voters of the one sentence argument Con is now claiming has won him this debate: “It is simply idiotic beyond belief to believe that either side conceded the points of the other.” In Cons example neither side addressed the other sides arguments, so they both conceded them. Because of this all arguments stand, leaving the judges to vote simply on whose arguments they felt were stronger. Cons issue seems to be that he feels that this is what a debate is supposed to be. His example is really not a debate but a speech contest for which deciding on a winner is utterly pointless. That is like watching an Obama speech and a Rick Perry speech, then asking a bunch of liberals whose argument they thought was better. The winner in this case is not decided by who made the better argument but who voted on it. Cons example has nothing to do with whether an unaddressed argument should be considered a concession. A concession does not mean that the debater agrees with the unaddressed argument, it means that the voters must interpret it that way for the sake of judging. In a debate you must be able to defend your arguments by refuting counter arguments against them. If neither side does this then they both failed in that aspect making the contest at that point even. Pro Case 1. The participants are debating each other, not the voters. “So if you can convince the audience on your own arguments and feel you can do so without addressing your opponents arguments that does not mean you concede” Con here is stating that debaters are trying to convince the audience of their arguments. This is true, but judging how well they do this is a very different concept. To properly judge this you must have an understanding beyond that of a typical audience member. Figure skaters for example, can convince the audience very easily that they performed better then their opponent. All they have to do is stay on their feet and most of the audience will be impressed. The judges however know better. They understand what to look for and how to score them. That is why the audience does not decide who wins the gold metal. On DDO members are required to participate in 3 debates before voting. This is for good reason; someone who has never debated will not understand what to look for. When someone makes a counter argument it is very easy for their opponent to shy away from that argument and start spouting nonsense that sounds good. Politicians are very good at this. Judging a debate requires people who know how debate works. Real debaters understand dishonest tactics, such as diverting attention away from their opponents argument instead of addressing it when they are about to be proven wrong. Allowing concessions promotes this and ruins the quality and purpose of any debate. It would allow debaters to stay in their own world of argumentation without ever understanding the opposing point of view and never getting down to the root cause of their disagreement. That is the point of debating. A debater who does not address his opponent’s arguments is not debating. If Con wishes to have a chance in this debate he must explain what he believes a debate is. He must explain why refutation should not play any major role in voting. He must explain how any issue would ever be resolved if neither side responds to the other sides arguments. Cons interpretation of debating is utterly pointless. 2. Debaters are judged by their ability to defend their position. “…a debater may think it is better to present there reasons for why they take a position and feel the audience is educated enough to see through the opponents arguments rather then go over there arguments.” Once again, the debaters are debating each other, not the audience. Anyone can “see right through” an argument. That does not mean that particular audience member is correct. There is no way for a debater to answer to the objections of the audience, nor should they have to. That is the job of their opponent. If their opponent can do this then that is what they should focus on, if they can not do this then they deserve to lose. Once again, debating is not a speech contest. Speech is the equivalent of golf, while debating is the equivalent of football. In golf, the players play their game with little regard to what their opponents are doing. Football is completely different. Anyone can claim that they have a better argument, it is not until they “step onto the field” and have their arguments challenged that they can prove it. If they can not defend their arguments then they do not belong on the field. 3. Concessions do not necessarily determine the debate “Sadly all I have to say is part 3 contradicts part 1. That is truly sad and if my audience is not smart enough to figure out how please don't ask me to explain think about it.” If my opponent is not smart enough to realize that he should explain how part 1 contradicts part 3 then the audience should not give him credit for an argument he didn’t make. However since I should provide a rebuttal to avoid conceding this point, here it is: Part 1 and 3 do not contradict each other. Think about it. There. That makes our arguments on this point even. Conclusion Con has made no real attempt to uphold his end of the resolution. He relies on insulting my arguments as opposed to refuting them, and just repeats his same old statements instead of elaborating on them to show how he is correct.