Resolved: Webcorp should substantially increase the welfare of www.debate.org.

It seems as if my opponent found 1 or 2 arguments that were new and thought that they all were new. This is not true of course. So this round I will simply show you how I argued these earlier in the debate. *Note: If you accept any of them as being argued earlier, then the negative argument is destroyed since he did not specifically attack ANY of them. His entire last speech was about rules. So his only argument on ALL of my arguments is that they are new arguments. May I point out that new arguments are to be dropped on a singled out method and if 1 new argument is made and 8 previously argued position is made then the 8 still stand and only the 1 falls. 1) "I meet Theory Violation." -This argument showed how my previous argument actually met theory violation. Here is what I argued (Round 2): -"No additional funding would be necessary." Round 3: -"I meet the interpretation since there is no money necessary for the plan." Is that a new argument?!?! Or is that just me pointing out that the theory violation is ridiculous and that I met all of it before (I just didn't point it out the same way). If this is a debate about tags then don't bother accepting the tags, just accept the explanations since those alone win me this debate. 2) "I don't violate" -(Round 2): "So essentially they would create the software. They created everything from scratch and would be easily capable of creating the plan." -(Round 3): "If you look back to my plan, ALL changes in status quo are software creation. And if you look to the people that run this site (Webcorp), they are self-employed and do this for no money and they need no more money to make this software" Hmm… Where are my new arguments? 3) "Flow through Funding is by normal means of Webcorp" -It STILL stands and it was said in my original Round 2 of my speech which IS a constructive. It is that thing called clarification that is reserved to the Affirmative side. Accept any of these, the theory violation falls. Debate.org Topicality: 1) "Debate.org would be nothing without its members." -(Round 2): "Because of this, more members would stay once they join debate.org, thus the welfare of it is increased by terms of welfare" -(Round 3): "If there were no members, it would lead to the destruction of the site. In other words, by strengthening the welfare of the members, the strength of debate.org will effectively increase as well." 2) "I meet the definition." -Seriously? The definition was argued in YOUR Round 1. In face I was flowing through the round for you. And by doing so I showed where I actually met it. 3) (5) "Reestablish my 4 Points" -They went unattacked AGAIN. And they of course relate to the 4 points made in my second speech. I don't even care if you accept the points, they went dropped and thus the T must drop with them. 4) Flow Through: "6) Losing any one of the definition, interpretation, standards, OR voters, the whole T drops. I meet the definitions, the interpretation doesn't meet with the membership part of the definition, the standards are abusive and irrelevant, and the voters are thus useless." -If you accept any of these, the Topicality falls. He then drops the rest of his points. They can't be accepted even if you accepted them before. The ONLY new argument in this debate is his last paragraph in his 3rd round. He says I have to re-articulate my plan. Against this, I have to say: 1) New Argument. In other words it was never clarified before this that I had to (at least by my opponent) 2) Time Suck. (Voting issue (or at least enough to counter-balance this point to make it null). 3) Rearticulating my plan directly was unnecessary. All of his arguments had little to do with my plan/solvency/etc. But the ones that did have to do with it: 4) I indirectly reiterated my plan(etc.) by attacking his points against them. He says my plan isn't topical. Then I reiterate it by saying it is. Just because I didn't point it out directly didn't mean that I didn't do it. Kind of like my "new" arguments that weren't actually new. 5) His only other real arguments don't have ANYTHING to do with my plan/solvency/etc. He ACCEPTS solvency with his original 2 CP's, my plan was reiterated in the topicality line of argumentation, and Inherency was dropped from the get-go. In the end, his only real arguments (that weren't dropped) were a few attacks against my plan. A topicality and a theory violation… both of which are null arguments. By doing this, he dropped Inherency, and he dropped Solvency. From this, my case stands strong and therefore, I urge you to enact my plan and therefore vote PRO! Thank you for this fun and educational debate. I hope to have more with you in the future and I also hope to see you in my tournament come March 1st. Thanks and good luck for your final speech! (even though you already lost ;)