Debate rules make winners out of followers

Since my opponent did not bring up any definitions, I'd like to define a couple of words (Definitions cannot be changed throughout the debate): Rule is defined by Oxford Dictionary as one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere. Winner means a person or thing that wins something (in this case, debate). Subservient is prepared to obey others unquestioningly. Capitalist means practicing, supporting, or based on the principles of capitalism. Whore is defined by Merriam-Webster as a woman who engages in sexual acts for money (Prostitute). Moving on. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's keep it simple: Experienced debaters don't win just because of rules; they win because they are more convincing to the judges. Skilled debaters invest a decent amount of time researching. Throughout the debate, they use convincing and reliable arguments from experts to persuade the judges. Which is why judges usually vote for experienced debaters. REFUTATION: 1. Most debate winners follow the rules and suggest to the voters that they are the winners, which in turn makes them nothing more then tyrants followers. -First of all, there is nothing wrong with following rules. -Second, rules are implemented as one of their RTPs, but this is not the direct cause of skilled debaters winning. -Third, my opponent claims that winners are just followers of a "tyrant." Who is this omnipotent being (tyrant)? I am puzzled by this "tyrants followers" thing... Please clarify. -Fourth, you forgot to put an apostrophe between t and s in "tyrants." 2. Most of the highest ranked debaters are nothing more then subservient capitalist whores. This "insult" makes no sense. Whore is defined as a woman who engages in sexual acts for money (prostitute). After several minutes of researching "highest ranked" debaters, I found out that none of them were prostitutes. (1.) Mikal- http://www.debate.org... Is he a female? No. Therefore, he is not a whore. (2.) YYW- http://www.debate.org... Is he a female prostitute? Nope. (3.) bsh1- http://www.debate.org... Is he a female prostitute? Not even close... (4.) Wylted- http://www.debate.org... Is he a female prostitute? I'm 100% sure he's not. (5.) 9spaceking- http://www.debate.org... Is he a female prostitute? No. (6.) airmax1227- http://www.debate.org... Is he a female prostitute? Nope. (7.) whiteflame- http://www.debate.org... Is he one? No... (I'm sure there are more skilled debaters out there...) My opponent addresses "highest ranked debaters" as subservient capitalist whores. These experienced debaters are not whores; they are just smart. They manage to win most of their debates because they are convincing. They don't win because of rules. They win because their debate skills exceed others. During Pro's first speech, my opponent brings up no arguments. Instead, he insults the "highest ranked" debaters by calling them whores. For all these reasons, please vote for the Negative side of this debate. Thank you.