Debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature.

This is an exciting debate, let's keep it going! "So which definition is he using, exactly? Just a note; Draxxt has accepted that "excellent" and "superior" are interchangable. I said in my R1 that excellent = superior, and he did not refute that in his R2. ... He argues my definition of "excellent", but does not specify an alternative. This means that my definition of "excellent" is the one used for the debate, and it is "Best at (whatever it describes)."" Does it matter? Aside from the dorsel fin and ovary deifinitions, I could use any. To your note, there is no way you can say that excellent equals best. Yes, excellent and superior are synonymous but that is not the issue. I never said it was best which voids a large quantity of your debate. "3) Even if his contentions aren't dropped, they don't prove how debate.org is the best way to relieve an argumentative nature, which is his burden in the round in order to win. Even if they're not dropped, they aren't topical as they link to the wrong definition of "excellent"." I just proved that excellent and best are not synonymous. that superior and best are not synonymous can also be infered. "4) He has not responded to any of the impacts I presented in R1, which say that, among other things, formal debate is superior to debate.org when looking at what's better to relieve an argumentative nature, as formal debate requires more speed, creativity, and strategy, which are otherwise not so intense on debate.org." Refer to my entire R2, consisting of refutations that not only prove his logic wrong, disprove his synonimity, and theories on word definitions, which was the extent of his debate. also, being excellent has other definitions than superior. I argued the superior case for the sake of argument, but clearly, I must define excellent. My opponent gave one definition and the other is excellent as: "very good of its kind : eminently good" No superiority is necessarily prominent in this debate unless for the sake of argument, therefore, I do not have to say what it is suerior to unless it comes up, which it had. In that case, I had given you examples of less satisfactory situations and how debate.org is superior to them. "Since he has not proved his burden and I've shown something that's better at relieving an argumentative nature than debate.org, you vote CON." I most certainly have fufilled the burden of proof, you have yet to tell me why the burden of proof may be wrong. "Why do authority figures factor into whether or not something is superior?" Debate.org does not get you detention when you argue with someone. " I don't think that's the case. In formal debate (let's just say that instead of the 213908503748 different leagues out there) there's a topic, yes, but since there are limited topics and something they need to argue, people with argumentative natures would have to think harder and more creatively in order to put themselves into the topic. By having a site like debate.org where people can just word resolutions the way they want and debate as they will, they aren't harnessing as much creative and debating energy." That is the beauty of debate.org, we aren't limited to previewed and pre-sanctioned debates, and if you don't like those fallacies, for that is what you are most likely referring to, then you can choose another debate. Some may choose to challenge themselves, some may not. But that's not the point, though I'm sure you'd try to say it was. The point is, this is an EXCELLENT way to relieve argumentative natures. "Just because they don't have the cash doesn't mean that formal debate isn't superior to debate.org, just as I can't afford a Boeing Dreamliner, but that doesn't mean it isn't superior to my model airplanes. Just because something is not financially available to some people does not invalidate it for comparison." Things would get very boring, not going on trips to other schools, debating the same people, and, in a very likely case, nearly memorising the opponent's strategies to an extent. Things would become boring and debators would yearn for alternate means of releasing their argumentative nature. and, finally, " I don't like certain people on this site. They don't like me. It's not like I'm about to have the ability to prevent them from voting." I thought it would be nice to give a small token of exceptance. I have no authority to prevent them but I wanted to express my wish to them and to see if you wanted to do the same. My opponent's only contention rests on the word "Excellent" being synonymous with "best" which I have proven it is not. There is no logical reasoning or real case behind my opponent, once refuted by my points, therefore, you vote pro. Thanks again, and good luck, -EG