Wikipedia should be a valid source for projects in schools

My opponent begins by attacking my definition by providing his own and then proceeding to state why his is preferred. I will show why all of his reasons are wrong. 1.Fairness- My opponent states that there is no way to argue that fish can use Wikipedia thus making this debate unfair. It should be noted that Con should not be punished simply because Con was creative with their argument and took a path that Pro assumed would not be taken. Furthermore, my opponent goes on to argue how fish could use Wikipedia later in his argument contradicting himself and making this point needed to be ignored. Finally, fairness is not essential as shown in this debate (http://www.debate.org...). Con had to argue about a culture that only Pro had knowledge to, yet as the votes show, still won. 2.Writer's intent- My opponent makes a grave misunderstanding. The order of definitions is not in order of which is better, but rather which is more commonly used. In the definition of table(http://dictionary.reference.com...), the definition concerning the piece of furniture come before the definition concerning the action in Student Congress. This does not mean that the earlier definition is better, just that it is more common. Hence, this point should be ignored. 3.Framer's intent- My opponent says that his is the only definition that fits the framer's intent. First, I challenge him to prove with conclusive evidence that what he says is the framer's intent is in fact the framer's intent. Now, my opponent supports that his definition is the only one that fits because of the fact that he says people in his 1st speech. However, lets look at the context. "Because of how Wikipedia is set up it allows people to talk and in groups choose what is the right information." The only sentence with the word people simply states that people regulate it. This does not mean that only people use it. For example, people regulate fish bowls. That does not mean that only people will use fish bowls. Thus, my definition also fits the framer's intent and this point must be ignored. 4.Reasonability- Until my opponent proves that it is impossible to look from the perspective of a fish this must be ignored. Furthermore, it is surely more reasonable to try to find a different perspective that might not be flawed than continue to look from the human perspective that is obviously flawed. As all of my opponents reasons should be ignored, there is no reason for my definition to be superseded by his and therefore mine stands. My opponent says is reason for making Wikipedia valid is "because of this ability to have quality information on many topics is why we should allow wikipedia o be use for projects in schools". Wikipedia may have information on many topics, but even if you accept my opponent's definition, this is actually a reason to not make it valid. There are many superfluous articles that can distract children from work such as this one (http://en.wikipedia.org...) or this one (http://en.wikipedia.org...). My opponent also states that Wikipedia has quality information. However, let us look at the definition of quality and excellence: Quality: high grade; superiority; excellence: wood grain of quality Excellence: the fact or state of excelling; superiority; eminence As we can see, quality is defined as being superior to something. However, my opponent never states what Wikipedia is superior to. As such, for the sake of the debate, I will say it is superior to a bag of poop. Although it may be superior to a bag of poop, this does not mean it should be competent/valid as a bag of poop certainly is not. Thus, my opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof. As it has been shown that my definition stands rather than my opponents, my 2-5 arguments are left unopposed and I extend them into the next round. My opponent then tries to pass of an episode of Futurama as evidence. Please notice that this is an unreliable source containing unrealistic things such as a 2-D world, trips to the edge of the universe, and Richard Nixon succeeding in becoming president again. I urge my opponent to gather information from a reliable source as otherwise this argument is invalid. Furthermore, this article (http://media.www.elvaq.com...), show that over 50% of aquatic life will be gone by 2050 at the current rate. Therefore, as long the rate continues, even if the technology my opponent alludes to is created in 3000, all fish will have already died. Now to my opponent's arguments: 1.My opponent then states that Wikipedia is as good as Encyclopedia Britannica and supports this with an article. However, I urge you to look at the date of the article "Thursday, 15 December 2005, 10:42 GMT". This article was written over two years ago. This is more than ample time for vandalism to occur on Wikipedia and thus this article cannot be considered valid. Furthermore, the article only states that they are close to equal in science. So, you are out of luck if you are not researching science. Even then, the article states that Wikipedia had 39 more errors. Thus, the article cannot and does not support my opponent's statement and this point must be ignored. 2.I have already shown why the huge variety is bad. 3.My opponent says that the mistakes are fixed quickly, but does not say they are fixed instantaneously. He still admits there is a period where Wikipedia is not competent/valid. As Wikipedia is not valid all the time, it should not be considered valid all the time. 4.My opponent says that Wikipedia is good because it is democracy in action. However, this democracy in action is why it is bad. I am sorry, but I do not want a lunatic with a computer rewriting history. The experts should be the only ones to change information. For those of you who for whatever reason do not accept my definition and want to ignore it, I offer this alternative argument: If you look at my opponent's arguments, they make a big assumption. That is that the world exists as we as a race percieve it and we are not dreaming or in a false reality (ex. The Matrix). I challenge my opponent to prove this to be true. Otherwise, he cannot prove that Wikipedia, sources, or schools of any kind exist and his arguments fall apart. As you can see, all my attacks stand and my opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof. I await his closing statements.