No more complicated answers to simple questions!!!

Well to begin this debate, I'm going to begin with my opponent's second round, and move back to why my entire case still stands, and how he did not at all touch on it, and then ended with an ad hom attack. In my opponent's second round, he talked about how I was completely off topic by addressing both the title of the debate, and his examples. The topic for debate, both at the top of the page, and in the web address reads: "No more complicated answers to simple questions" This means that the Pro is advocating that complicated answered are unnecessary/bad/not appropriate, etc. while Con is explaining why they are necessary/good/ appropriate, etc. He appears to have had some alternate intent, but because no such intent was posted on the topic bar, it is not pertinent to this debate. Unless my opponent expected me, or whoever else challenged, to be of the ability to read minds, this is an abusive (unfair) burden and should be treated as so - dropped. However, even if his argument - which I have just addressed and refuted - stood, he still should not win this debate. For his understanding, I will repost my entire refutation of his criticisms of the primaries. =================================== Primaries are done slowly: Yes! This allows low-budget true Americans, and not just the rich upper-class to run for the Highest Office. By staggering the primaries, candidates who could not have previously had a chance now legitimately stand to win states - look at Mike Huckabee and Iowa. Had he been forced to divide his resources (and his time) between 50 states simultaneously, he would have been spread too thin to make an impact. However, because of the staggered times, he came out from behind to _win_ a major voting state. Superdelegates: Are absolutely necessary. First, they have never, ever voted against the will of the people. Second, they only exist in the Democratic party. Third, the are critical to maintaining the will of the people. In what a cataclysm known as "crossing-over", people from other parties will register to an opposing party, and vote for the candidate they find easiest to defeat - best serving the interest of their own party, while screwing the Democrats over. They have also been known to advertise for an opposing party's candidate - to siphon off votes from the majority leader. ================================================= That means that even if my opponent was correct about me being non-topical in one aspect, I've completely refuted the only points he had about the primaries. In his Round 2 speech, he never addressed these refutations, nor any of my other contentions, so I urge a Con ballot. Finally, I am going to refute the remainder of my opponent's arguments. I've already refuted in entirety his criticisms of the current system, and now I will move to demolish his arguments about what they "should" be. While I realize this may appear to be overkill, I'd like to make it clear that the only viable position to vote for in this round is Con. --- ===== ===== ==== My opponent stated that the primaries should be held all at once: ==== Actually I already addressed this - staggered primaries allow for candidates who have limited funding to do better, and reduce the dependancy on a large pool of wealth. ==== My opponent stated that we shouldn't use pledged delegates ==== Pledged Delegates are very similar to superdelegates, except for that they are bound to the will of the people. Hence the name, "pledged delegates". These delegates serve merely to courier the votes to the national convention. They don't modify the votes at all - for all practical purposes, they are the living equivalents of ballot count machines. Without these people, voter fraud, similar to that which took place in Florida, Michigan, and a number of other states, in which registered voters were defrauded from voting could occur much easier. They serve no negative purpose, but actually preserve against fraud. ===== ===== ---- My father once told me that people that swear have nothing better to say. The extent of my opponent's eloquent presentation was "vote Pro cuz he's dum". As for a Reason For Decision, this one is not very strong, nor does it have any backing. This type of attack generally (as is the case here) occurs when the person has nothing better to say, or has no other way to win the debate, so he must resort to attacking his opponent, not the arguments. I will not stoop to that level, but I would ask you to look at the fact that he did, and that I have refuted his entire argument completely and totally. Furthermore, my case, which criticizes the topic and his examples, was never even contested, let alone refuted. In light of these facts, I urge a vote in Negation.