deseptive flaw in debateing system

Interpretation of the argumentPro in the last round says. .. "it would seem reasonable that it is indeed this "last word factor" which is contributing to that large imbalance, even if it is not the sole reason. "This is moving the goal posts by Pro and I reject it. I am not going to let them change what they are claiming mid way through the debate. Pro had always implied that the instigator was at an OVERALL disadvantage BECAUSE the contender has the last word. I agreed that the instigator had a disadvantage in not having the last word. What I clearly said I was gong to argue was. . "I shall be seeking to show that even though Pro correctly points out one area where the instigator always has a disadvantage, this does NOT mean that the instigator is always at an OVERALL disadvantage. "1) The instigator gets to form the resolution2) The instigator gets to make the first argumentI am not going to repeat myself on this point, I am confident most if not all readers will get the point here.3) The instigator can launch a pre-emptive strike against counter arguments/rebuttalPro asks "What benefit is there to a "pre-emptive" strike what difference does it make if the point is made in the 1st round or the second round. "The difference it makes by making it in the first round by the instigator is that you already weaken if not refute the counter argument before the contender can even bring it up. It also makes a difference because if the contender wants to use that argument they have to make the argument while also defending it against your pre-emptive strike. Plus if the defender also has their own argument they want to use as well now they have to split their first round resources between trying to rescue their already attacked counter argument and their own argument as they try to establish their case. Pros Statistical analysisPreviously I argued some data about Danielle and myself which actually "proved" the opposite of what Pro was trying to argue. I think this shows that we are not going to get anyway by arguing over the stats of a particular individual. Pros Statistical analysis: InterpretationBut what about the overall stats from DDO ? as Pro says. .. " The following is a quote from Ore-Ele: "Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500 debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%. ""I am not going to challenge the numbers here, but what I am challenging is Pros interpretation. The numbers do not speak for themselves as this article from UNC says. .. "If the author gives you her statistics, it is always wise to interpret them yourself. That is, while it is useful to read and understand the author's interpretation, it is merely that—an interpretation. It is not the final word on the matter. Furthermore, sometimes authors (including you, so be careful) can use perfectly good statistics and come up with perfectly bad interpretations" [1]This is why in the last round I gave that example of the pirates vs global average temperature. Its not that the data is in doubt, it just that it is wrong and fallacious to come to the conclusion that based on this data that the rise in global temperature is caused by the loss in the numbers of pirates. Like wise, I am arguing that although the data shows a higher winning percentage for the contenders overall on DDO its wrong and fallacious to come to the conclusion that this due to the "last word" factor, as there are plenty of other factors going on and unaccounted for, just like in the pirates and temperature example. Pros statistic analysis: Correlation is not proof of causationAs part of Pros argument they use two variables, the contenders winning percentage as variable 1 and the contender having the last word as variable 2. Pro tries to suggest a causation between these two variables. But this can't be taken as a given as wikipedia says. .. "The conventional dictum that "correlation does not imply causation" means that correlation cannot be used to infer a causal relationship between the variables. This dictum should not be taken to mean that correlations cannot indicate the potential existence of causal relations. However, the causes underlying the correlation, if any, may be indirect and unknown, and high correlations also overlap with identity relations (tautologies), where no causal process exists. Consequently, establishing a correlation between two variables is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship (in either direction). " [2]Pros statistical analysis: Other factors unaccounted forI don't think Pro realizes the full ramifications of Roys comments. Remember on DDO the instigator most of the time creates the debate then waits for some one to accept the debate, and that person who accepts the debate becomes the contender. What Roy was saying is that people, especially experienced debaters who care about winning debates, are cherry picking which debates they take. This is why Roy talks about how debaters are scared off from seeing an instigator with a strong round 1 argument. In other words these potential contenders are going after an easy or easier win. This would explain why contenders have a higher winning percentage, as they are only accepting debates that gives them a good chance, and a higher chance of winning. Now how does Pros analysis take this into consideration ? it doesn't. As such I think we have good grounds for not accepting Pros interpretation of the data that says the contender has a higher winning percentage due the the "last word" factor. I look forward to Pros reply. Sources[1] . http://www.unc.edu...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...