Online debates are better than real life debates

In this speech I will be going over my opponent's points and why they are wrong. Then I will be going over my points and why you should vote affirmative. My opponent accept my framework, which means that whenever my opponent talks about actual debates, he accepts the burden that there is a lot of unnecessary work involved in setting up a physical debate. In contention one, my opponent would have you believe that debate makes you a better mannered person. However, my partner and I have two responses to this. The first response is that debate does not improve your personality. Debate makes people argumentative above all else, as that is the point of debate. Also, the actual benefits that my opponent brings up, such as being calm or maintaining composure is better obtained by other methods. For example, other regular speech events such as Dramatic Interpretation improve composure far better than arguing with another person. The second response is that online debates improve the actual main points of debate. My opponent brings up small and irrelevant benefits from physical debate. However, he does not consider the main skill that is being improved when debating. The most important skill of all for any debater to have is analysis. Debates are created in order to improve analysis, not to improve being calm, or maintaining composure, as my opponent brings up. If what my opponent said were true, then it would be like saying that reading a book is beneficial because it works out your biceps when you hold the book up. Because of this, it's reasonable to say that the point of debate is to improve analysis and thinking of answers to opponents' arguments. While both online debates and physical debates do improve analysis, online debates are better because they allow more flexibility and more rounds to take place in the same amount of time, as I've explained in my first case. In contention 2, my opponent brings up the benefit of thinking on the spot that real life debates bring. However, there are three responses to this. The first response is that thinking on the spot is not actually a major life skill. The only instance that I can think of where people would be forced to think on the moment would be to lie or make something up. However, my opponents provide no examples of either of these situations where it would be beneficial. He says in his speech that making up a speech in a short time span is a good thing, yet does not provide any examples that apply to real life. The second response is that even if thinking on the spot is a good life skill, physical debates do not train this skill. In a round, people must deal with the shortened time span that they are given. As a result, every single debater comes prepared with pre-written blocks and cards. In an actual round, they are just essentially stringing together blocks with transition words. The last response to this is that other events train thinking on the spot better than debate. As I've proven in the second response, debates do not actually train thinking on the spot. If a person wanted to improve how well they thought on the spot, then they would do other events such as Impromptu and Extemp. Events such as these are actually made in order to improve how well a person can make a speech in a short amount of time. My opponent's last contention is about how real debates are more engaging. First of all, my opponent provides no benefits from engaging other people in an actual debate. While talking with other real people is nice, my opponents provide no example of how this improves debate skills or can help in the future. All my opponent does is say, "You can talk to real people," while giving it no impacts or analysis. The second response is that online debates allow for more time with other people. As I've brought up in my first case, real rounds take a large amount of time and commitment to set up and prepare. However, by doing online debates instead of physical debates, a person would be able to have more time to actually do the things that they want, such as hanging out with friends or researching debate. If anything, if you as the judge really do care about this point about engaging with other people, then you would vote for the affirmative side because online debates allow for more time to enjoy with other people. In conclusion, if you actually want the benefits that my opponent brings up, then you should vote for the affirmative, because that's what online debates improve. We urge an affirmative ballot.