Resolved: The Angry Video Game Nerd is better than the Irate Gamer.

Before I begin my argument, I have an announcement to make. I admit that I have a habit of finding arguments to use that deal with semantics. Although I am aware that there are people that do not like this style, that is not a valid reason to vote me down. Con is free to negate Pro's arguments anyway Con chooses, whether that be the typical "AVGN is better…IG is better…" debate or the style I chose. As long as I negate, my opponent's points, I have done my job. My opponent's offense: 1. My opponent first claims that my debate style takes away from the essence of this website and uses my attacks concerning "copy" as validation. First, since this is a debate website, I fail to see how a debate style takes away from a this website. Moreover, I did not attack the use of the word copy. In fact, the only mention of it you will find in my first argument the definition of copy and showing how my opponent contradicts himself. I did not twist the definition nor did I attack his use of the word copy but simply took what he said as it was. How else am I supposed to take it? I cannot read my opponent's mind and know what they actually meant. My opponent then calls my style abusive because supposedly lets me twist his words. My opponent is essentially calling definitions abusive because that is all I used to show how he contradicted himself. This cannot be considered as definitions are used in many other debates on and off this website. Thus, concerning this is void and should be ignored. 2. My opponent says to not recognize Irate because he tries to copy. However, if you look at the topic, you will see that my opponent is advocating "The Angry Video Game Nerd is better than the Irate Gamer" not whether Irate should be recognized. As such, this is off topic and should be ignored. 3. My opponent says that AVGN is funnier and says that he has analysis and evidence. Please notice that throughout the whole debate my opponent has said only one phrase concerning the "funnyness" of the two shows ("His rants are funnier, he has more clever dialogue, and he uses clever settings to add to the comedy. ") and he posted two videos. First, I will begin with the phrase. The definition of evidence according to dictionary. com is "data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. " (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Note: here the "jury" is the voters thus meaning that the definition applies to this situation. As my opponents phrase does not include data, it is not evidence. In fact, it is just a baseless conjecture with nothing to back it up. As such, it cannot be considered valid in a debate and must be ignored. The videos also do not fit the definition of evidence and as they are simply videos of the two shows are not analysis. Thus, they must also be considered invalid. 4. My opponent once again fails on his burden of proof. He provides nothing to back up that his jokes are more subtle nor does he provide enough video evidence that overall AVGN gets a lot angrier. As such, these are baseless conjectures and must be ignored. As you can see, my opponent essentially has no offense and must lose because of this as without offense he cannot advocate what he must advocate. Going on: "First, just because. .. " That may be, but reading my arguments show no attack on your use of grammar. I have already shown how my usage of the definition of the word copy is not an attack on his usage of it. What I am advocating is not pointing out a grammatical mistake, as you did not make a grammatical mistake. I just simply changed the resolution to what I am advocating to make it clear and avoid confusion, "I did say it was vague. .. " Notice that if you look in my opponent's second round attack on what I am advocating, you will see that he indeed questions, "How does it fulfill YOUR burden of refutation? " and nowhere does he call what I am advocating sneaky or abusive. Moreover, as I have already stated, it is a completely legal and non-abusive stance for me to take as I am refuting the resolution. Moreover, my stance does not allow me to twist my opponent's words. Indeed, my opponent does not show how it does allow me to do this. "This arguement can be thrown out right now. I have provided. .. " However, I have also proven all of that offense invalid meaning that it in fact is not enough. Moreover, even if these were to all stand it does not prove that AVGN is better BEYOND A DOUBT which is what my opponent is advocating. "I know what my opponent is getting at. .. " However, you have not substantiated those arguments with anything but baseless conjectures. It has been shown that you have no analysis whatsoever and those "stats, figures, and sources" are what is needed to substantiate your arguments. Thus you have no arguments and all votes must go to Con. "I'm gonna be honest, I have know idea what he is talking about here, haha. Ummmmm. .. . yeah" Sorry, was a misunderstanding on my part. "5. < > There he goes again. .. " That's the thing. We did NOT all know what you were getting at. There was nothing that suggested that I should ask something concerning that in the comment's box so I did not. This is not an argument but rather my defending of why I attacked it the way I did. Moreover, I do not have to do the direct polar opposite to negate and argument. I just simply need to show that it is in valid, which I have done. "6. <<"Fine, Irate is not better because he simply TRIES TO copy the AVGN". Notice how he says that the fact IG tries to copy only supports that Irate Gamer is not better than AVGN. As this is not what my opponent must advocate in order to fulfill his burden of proof and is off-topic, anything concerning IG's copying must be ignored. >> This is completly on topic. .. " This is NOT on topic because it is not what you are advocating. "AVGN is better than IG" is not the same as "IG is not better than AVGN" as the latter allows them to be equal and the statement still be true. Thus, it is off topic. Moreover, since your definition of better is "of higher quality", being the original is not always better as time of release does not affect quality. Thus, the order in which they came in must not be a factor. "That could be a good argument. .. " That is why there are statistics, data etc. My point was that you need evidence to back up your statements. Thus, your analogy with the China is flawed and null. Without evidence, one idea is not better than the other. For example, take "AVGN gets angrier". Although you said that, I can simply say "AVGN does not get angrier" and your statement would be refuted. Thus, lack of evidence makes your arguments invalid. "This IS evidence. .. " However, I have already shown that what you used the video to support should be ignored meaning that the video should be ignored. Moreover, I have already shown that the video is not evidence. "Bahhhh. .. c'mon. Subtle. .. " My opponent says that subtle jokes are better. However, as utilitarianism overrules my opponent's opinion, all of this is invalid. "Ummm. .. what? Special. .. " Yes, but this is only related to the quality of the special effects not the subject. So, this is invalid.