Challenge me.

Those are some interesting arguments. I think, however, that many of the arguments do not adequately address my concerns. I hope to convince everyone that my risky move was not a reckless one. 1. BURDEN OF PROOF: A. "Just because each of us has the burden of proof does not mean we are not allowed to attack the other's case. I must tear down your case WHILE strengthening my own. That is debating." --This argument pays no attention to what I was actually saying. My argument was that if neither of us are able to effectively prove our arguments, then nobody will vote. In order for us to have a good debate, we need to encourage more voting so as to gain a greater consensus of the true winner. I think this is a valid point, but it has pretty much been ignored. B. "If, in your scenario, we were defending our own cases, that would mean they were being attacked. Therefore, the debate would be well-rounded, ad there is no problem. There is nothing wrong with that scenario. As for the character limit,(that my opponent set) that is where the skill comes in. Words must not be wasted, and the point should be clear. THAT is what the voters want to see." --I think there are a few misconceptions here. Just because we are defending our cases, it doesn't mean that we are attacking each other's arguments and debating. Take my opponents first argument in this round for example: It had absolutely nothing to do with the actual point I was making. I think it makes the debate a lot less fun. --Next, the character limit argument is not logical because, although I did set the limit, I set it for the most characters possible. And sure, I think skill plays a part in these debates. However, I think it is in the interest of this debate to make it as interesting and fun as possible. C. Alternative: "There are a few problems with this. We could just have easily reworded the resolution to: "Citizens should NOT be allowed to own firearms" and put the burden on you. If only one side has the burden of proof, then the debate becomes what my opponent says we should not allow it to be. If only I have the burden of proof, CON has no need for a case. Then I am only defending, and he is only attacking. That is clearly weighted for the negative side. (nice try though ;) If both sides share the burden, then it would be fairly weighted. In addition, it would make a mixture of attacking and defending, as opposed to my opponent's suggestion." --I think there is another huge misconception here. My alternative suggests that we put the burden of proof in the hands of the PRO in this debate because it effectively avoids the disadvantages of giving us both the burden of proof. --Let me explain what I mean by offensive and defensive strategy in debate. I'm arguing that this debate should not give the burden of proof to both sides. All my opponent is doing is arguing defensively by saying my way is bad. Instead, he could be making this a better debate by advocating that his way is good! Keep this in mind! There have been no arguments as to why having the burden of proof on both sides is a good thing! This means that even if there is a minuscule reason that the burden of proof should be on the side of the PRO, then you should vote accordingly. --I don't want this debate to get mixed up w/ this "attacking and defending" debate. I want a quality debate. I just don't think it can be attained with a burden of proof on both sides. (POINTS 2 AND 3 [NEW MATERIAL AND SWEARING] ARE DROPPED--I LIKE THE IDEAS) 4. DEFINITIONS: "I must also contend my opponent's definitions. He made a dangerous move by allowing me to pick the topic." --Exactly. I allowed my opponent to pick the topic--and JUST that. My opponent is arguing that I can't change any of his definitions and that they are unarguable. Here is the problem with that assertion: No sources or reasons have been used. My opponent hasn't shown us any reason to think that I can't argue the definitions--there isn't a rule book! If my opponent wants to give some reasons why any definition will work, that would be one thing. However, there is absolutely no reason that I shouldn't be able to argue against the definitions. Because, of this, please look back to my initial arguments when evaluating this round. --My next argument branches from my opponent's idea that definitions are not arguable. I would say that they definitely should be in order to have a good debate. Every debater comes into a debate w/ preconceived notions of what different words mean. We are influenced by a load of different things (e.g. dictionary.com argument from last round). Making it so we HAVE to perceive certain words in certain ways is not a good way to debate. Even the definitions of the actual words are subject to our own interpretations. In fact, I think debating the way my opponent wants to lends itself to a close-minded discussion. I would argue that good debates are between open-minded individuals who enjoy expressing new ideas. If we don't allow my definitions, we run the risk of ignorance playing a huge part in this debate. --Also, I would like readers to take a look at my previous arguments concerning the validity of my opponent's definitions. Dictionary.com is not a valid source, and I have given reasons why. "Please stick to the resolution and its meaning." --I will stick to the resolution, but I think sticking to your meaning is nearly impossible and actually bad for this debate for reasons already listed. 5. FRAMEWORK: "Since I am PRO, and since you allowed me to make the resolution, we must debate this by my framework. If you do not want that in the future, do not allow your opponent to choose the resolution." --I think that this is incorrect. Although I did allow my opponent to create the resolution, he is somehow reasoning that we must also debate within his own framework. I think that two competing frameworks makes for a good debate. With that said, my scenarios should stand. --Think about it this way. My opponent is essentially arguing that I should not be allowed to argue. This is a debate round! I think I should be able to argue anything I want. I have listed many reasons for this. It's all in the interest of a quality debate. Although I allowed my opponent to craft the resolution, I'm just critiquing my opponent's architecture of his framework. I'm making totally valid arguments, and my opponent is telling you not to listen to them (for no apparent reason). "We could just have easily reworded the resolution to: "Citizens should NOT be allowed to own firearms" and put the burden on you." --This is essentially what I have to do now under your own framework! If I am mistaken, please let me know. It becomes a completely different debate when we change these things around. I'll stop here for now. I'd invite my opponent to make some on-case arguments whenever he pleases. As of now, I believe I should win this debate for the sole fact that I am the one interested in a good debate with open-minded discussion in place of ignorance.