Contrary to popular belief, strategy is important in the game of rock paper scissors.

I will quickly reword my opponent's arguments and rebut them accordingly. Firstly, my opponent says that since the phrase "Contrary to popular belief" is in this debate's title, and since the title is meant to signify what this debate is about, therefore, that would be the topic he is to debate about. Although this is true, one should still use common sense to figure out what the focus of the debate is going to be if there is some ambiguity. Looking past the debate title, and looking at the debate description, it should be clear that what I want to focus on is RPS strategy, not what the consensus is. In the debate description, I wrote the line "I however, believe that there is strategy that could improve your chances of winning in this game". In light of this sentence, one should not draw the conclusion that I want to debate about the consensus of the issue. To use another topic to clarify my point, if I want to debate whether it is true that most people believe in God or not, my personal belief is irrelevant, and I would not include that in the debate description. But because I have included what my personal belief is on the issue, it should be clear that I want to debate about the issue, not the consensus of the issue. My opponent then blames me for the ambiguity, and since it is ambiguous, the opponent can take whatever direction he wants with this debate. My opponent is right to an extent, but there are other things that he should consider. Strictly speaking, a topic can never be free of ambiguity. We can only do our best to make a topic as clear as possible. In the case that there is ambiguity, the opponent may take a different direction than the direction the instigator wants it to, but the direction my opponent wishes to take still has to be within reason. In this particular case, it isn't reasonable to give me the burden of proving that most people believe there is strategy in RPS because most likely there is no data that could prove this, and there is very little to debate about in a debate that would be based on pure statistics. I suspect that my opponent IS aware of the direction I had in mind (indeed, he has made a contention in second round that addresses my topic in my intended direction), but he chose to interpret it his way to give himself a significant advantage. This may be a legal move, but I have made the case (both in the second round and this round) of why my direction is more legitimate. If the voters believe that I have won this case, voters should ignore my opponent's attempt to thwart this debate and all the arguments he made for it. Moving on, my opponent responded to the defense I made (my testimony of why I believe most people believe RPS is just luck) by saying that he could just as easily said that everyone he knows believes that there is strategy in RPS contrary to the people that I know. Voters should immediately sense a red flag, as my opponent has suggested that he could just fabricate information to counter my testimony. I agree with my opponent that testimony cannot usually prove a point to a satisfactory degree, but if the voters are also aware that the people he knows generally do not regard RPS as a game of strategy, the voter would be a lot more sympathetic to my testimony and gives it more weight. On the other hand, if my opponent fabricates a testimony that people are immediately skeptical of, his testimony would weigh a lot less than mine. So ultimately, the value of our testimony is up to the voters, regardless of what my opponent may say to counter that. Having said all that, I will rebut opponent's contention advocating the stance that "it is a popular belief that strategy is important for RPS" anyways. He claimed that because RPS tournaments exist, there must be strategy in RPS. He based this conclusion of a few premises that are fallible. My opponent's first contention: "The purpose of any competition is to win by being the best". I have already shows why this premise is wrong (my response in second round). People may attend a tournament for RPS not relying on strategy, but luck instead. Luck, by definition, is not something you can be "good" or "bad" at, because pure luck, by definition, is just random chances that could not be controlled by any way or form. Thus, my opponent's first premise for this contention falls apart. My opponent's second and third contention: "In the game of RPS, the goal is to win by predicting what your opponents will do while doing the opposite in your favor [...RPS] is a game of deduction" This is begging the question. This premise can only be true assuming that people DO believe there is strategy in RPS. Thus, my opponent is trying to prove something is true, but assuming it is true first. My opponent shows how there could be strategy in RPS, but he still has not prove that people who goes to tournaments have such a mindset. I have also made the point that people may simply for fun (and the chance of getting cash) My opponent attempts to defend this by saying it is a competition to win after all. This, however, does not counter my point. People may enter this contest with the mindset that it is a competition of luck. The competition might as well as be "who could call the right side flipping a coin" and it'd made no difference to the competitors. Finally, to respond to my opponent's last contention... my opponent said "PRO argues that there will be situations in ANY game where no strategy is involved. He adds by stating that his only burden is to show that when two players want to win, there WILL be strategy involved" His first point is "This being possible in any game is nothing more than a non sequitur. If not, then I challenge PRO to show why it being possible in other games would defeat my argument which provides a situation where strategy is of no importance" My opponent has challenged me how it would defeat his argument, but in fact, I already have. I will restate it anyways for my opponent... since it is the case there exist situations in any game in which strategy is of no importance, the my opponent giving me a situation for RPS would not prove anything. The point of the debate is whether there can be strategy involved if both players wants to win the game. My opponent's argument can apply to any game, even games that no one would dispute there is strategy involved (my example in the second round is chess). In light of this, my opponent's argument cannot prove there is no strategy in RPS anymore than he can prove there is no strategy in chess. His second point is "the resolution isn't "Contrary to popular belief, when two players want to win, strategy is important in the game of RPS"" I will use the same argument I have used in the beginning of this round again. In the case that the topic is ambiguous, my opponent should use his common sense to figure out what the intention of the debate is. He should not take the topic in a obscure direction which would give him an unfair advantage. Finally, my opponent has given a feeble attempt to give an example of two players who wants to win in RPS, but do not rely in strategy. He said "playing the game at random or playing with eyes closed [...] players would be playing to win while not relying on strategy" However, this again is my opponent's attempt to try to take the debate into an obscure direction. He may have proved that there is no strategy involved, but it is a very specific case my opponent has given. If two players are playing chess with their eyes closed too (and not knowing the pieces' location), there would also be no skill involved. Thus, my opponent's argument has not disprove that there is no RPS in strategy for the reason that any parallels of his argument can be employed successfully to any other games. Because my opponent has changed the debate without legitimacy, and then fails to provide sound argument for my case in my intended direct