flaw in debateing system

That being said, my opponent has committed a simple mistake. This mistake is often called the "Correlation vs Causation" fallacy. In this fallacy, a person assumes that a strong correlation implies causation, however this is not always the case. Consider the following examples:In the Summer, Crime rates increase. Also in the summer, Ice Cream Sales increase. According to my opponent's logic, Crime causes Ice Cream Sales. In my bedroom, I have a old cell phone that does not work. Not once has a tiger entered my bedroom, nor have I ever encountered a tiger while carrying that phone. Therefore, that phone repells tigers.100% of people who read, also die. Therefore, reading causes death. These are all examples of a misunderstanding between correlation and causation. Simply put, my opponent has not proven a reasonable causation relationship, there are several other factors that may play into the victory of the contenders. In addition, my opponent has only sampled a very small portion of the sight to draw this conclusion. What is the relationship between a person being Pro vs Con in this victory statistic? How does a Con Instigator stack up against a Con Contender. .. or a Pro Instigator vs a Pro Contender? In order to prove causation, all of these factors must be taken into account, and frankly my opponent has not done so. Now, let us look at the reason my opponent gives for why the Instigator is at a disadvantage. He claims that not having the last word in a debate is a near insermountable obstacle toward victory. While I do not disagree that this advantage is significant, I intend to show that the Instigator posesses a competing advantage that is not only equally as powerful, but in fact is much more powerful. That is the power of the first word. While, the last word is significant, having the first word in a debate is much more influential. Here is a list of the benefits of posting first in a debateA) Deciding who is pro or con - Anyone who knows how debates function know that Pro holds a greater burden of proof than con, so the instigator is able to decide simply by picking their side where the burden of proof liesB) Assigning burden of proof - There are several instances where a debate has shared burden of proof, posting first gives the instigator the ability to assign burden of proof. C) Definitions - It has been said that "he who defines the debate, wins the debate. " The Instigator is the first person to provide definitions for key terms, and unless the definitions provided are blatenly false, the Contender has an uphill battle to get those definitions overturnedD) Structure - My opponent claims that the Contender can introduce a new argument, or rebuttle tactic in the final round. However, as the instigator the structure of the debate can be determined to defend against this. There are several instances on this site where the phrase "No new arguments in the final round" have been used, and if this is disobeyed without a substantiated reason the Contender often loses on the basis of conduct. E) The Rules - The Instigator has complete control over every aspect of the debate rules. He defines the character limit, the time limit, and even the relative rank of persons who can accept the debate. I believe that this list of advantages easily outweights the disadvantage of not having the last word, but for now I pass this debate back to my opponent for his rebuttal and closing argument.