Violin is one of the hardest instruments to master.

My opponent has misinterpreted the premise of the argument. The proposition is that Violin is ONE of the hardest instruments to MASTER. It logically follows that the stance I must uphold is the fact that the violin is a relatively difficult instrument to master, which has been previously defined as the ability to acquire complete knowledge or skill in (an accomplishment, technique, or art). I have read my opponent's rebuttals and they are all digressive, meaning that his counterarguments draw tangentials from the proposition. I am required to prove that violin is a difficult instrument, and I have done so proficiently. It need not objectively be the hardest instrument to master, only a relatively difficult one. My opponent has misconstrued this fact and proceeds to compare the technical requirements of violin to that of the bassoon. He argues that the bassoon also demands for very regulated and precise blows projected from the diagram and that it also demands for precise fingering resembling that of the violin. As I was scaffolding of my argument I mentioned the coordination between the bow and the fingers, and in this case, the coordination of the fingers and the mouth. Thus, his arguments only serve to reconstruct the foundation of my argument. Even if, say, the bassoon was a more technically advanced instrument than the violin, that does not suffice to disprove the proposition. The violin remains a difficult instrument to master and you have neglected to dispute the technical and mental difficulty posed by that of the violin. Thus, my points stand unchallenged. My opponent continues by asserting the baseless remark of how bassoons and flutes are more difficult to master than a violin. This may be true, but my opponent previously confirmed that blowing a bassoon is equally if not less difficult than manipulating a bow; this concludes to be a logical fallacy, unless pressing down tabs (with no tonal requirement of the ear and the fingers) poses a difficult challenge to bassoon players. My opponent then proceeds to refute some of my arguments. He states that bow division and bow control is similar to tonguing. Tonguing is the alteration of the aperture formed by your mouth and it opens the player to a whole range of dynamics and sound ranges once the player has mastered the skill of opening and closing his/her mouth whilst corresponding to what the music demands for. Bowing on the other hand, is a much more complex problem. You have to maintain a strict position of the hand while pressing down the bow at a certain bow to string contact point. You must do this while accounting for the strength that must be applied, the dynamics that are offered in the piece and the retainment of a singing sound. My opponent has conceded to me that he has only played the violin for four years so I understand his deficiencies in understanding the technical dexterity that the violin demands at a high caliber. My adversary then asserts that the bow is held up primarily by three fingers and the thumb; this is incorrect and many violinists who have accumulated a decent amount of experience will agree with me. There exist two main nodal points on the bow in terms of bow control (please refer to my adversary's image above), the point in which the thumb and middle finger intersect and the point in which the pinkie makes contact with the bow. In basic physics, you have learned that if you sit near the end of a teeter-totter rather than closer to the middle, you can generate a stronger force from the same weight. The same notion applies to violin; despite the fact that the pinkie is a fragile finger, it is responsible for generating the 'currents' and 'turbulence' (dynamic expressions) of the music and, if dropped, the bow will collapse with only one primary nodal point to balance on. My opponent then proceeds to claim that the size of the instrument increases proportionally with difficulty This is ridiculous. I now await my opponent's turn.