My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

Rebuttals:PRO: "I don't think my opponent knows how debates on DDO work."Personal insult aside, I have been a highly active and successful member of this website for months.PRO: "When a person accepts a debate with a certain set of rules, then those rules are to be followed. If my opponent did not like the rules, he did not have to accept the debate."In my other rounds I've already explained why I chose to accept this debate challenge (but not Pro's framework); however, my opponent ignores my arguments. I accepted the debate in order to point out injustices inherent in the way he and others conceptualize rules, debate, and morality. My opponent’s arguments demonstrate that such a re-thinking is highly necessary: My opponent believes that rules should be accepted by default, and also calls debate a "game” (tell that to Nelson Mandela) and his own challenge "stupid." In reality, debate is our expresses ideas in a critical manner--through debate we learn, we think, and we work together. My opponent gave no reason for why the rules helps accomplish the true goals of debate; he even admits in round 1: "I don't why I decided to do this." Therefore, voters should advocate my arguments that more effectively meet the goals of debate.Furthermore, my opponent drops my argument showing why one should work to solve injustice regardless of rules. In my opponent’s logical format, Nelson Mandela and Dr. Martin Luther King follow the rules instead of make change. PRO: "Also, my opponent has his own set of rules he wants you to follow. He says whoever has the better arguments should win, not whoever has follows the rules. Ironically, that is a rule in itself."There is nothing “ironic” in my claim. I did not propose an a priori "rule," but instead a fully-developed argument which is consistent with my statement that arguments should be held in higher esteem than rules. Debate does not take place a vacuum: what we say in this debate has impact. All of the great civil rights movements have come about through debate. As the saying goes: "the pen is mightier than the sword." My opponent needs an education on weapon safety. By suggesting that even unfair rules ought to be followed, my opponent makes an argument that has a negative impact on the world, which is counter to the very purpose of debating in the first place. PRO: "In this debate structure, the person with the better argument false second to the rules. Why is it like that for the debate? Because the rules specifically state that a full 7 point concession is what occurs if a rule is broken."My opponent's argument here is a textbook example of circular logic. I do mean to belittle my opponent in pointing this flaw out but only educate. My opponent claims that rules are more important than arguments. His justification? According to pro, because the rules say so. My opponent uses the authority of rules to justify the authority of rules, which is circular logic (a type of fallacy).PRO: "My opponent can spend all the time he wants on long rounds, it is nothing more than a distraction from the fact that he already lost the debate after the rules were broken."As in all his other rounds, pro has insisted that rules are more important than anything else in debate. My opponent has failed to consider why we even debate in the first place. Such a debate-about-debate is called a "meta debate," and is a very important component of debate. My opponent ignored my arguments on why debate is not a game, and nor should it ever be considered a game.PRO: "My opponent said that I put rules over critical thinking. That is clearly nonsense, because it is not using critical thinking to accept a debate structure, only to try to refute it afterwards."1. My opponent contradicts himself. He states just before: "In this debate structure, the person with the better argument false second to the rules."2. I never accepted my opponent's rules. Instead, I accepted the challenge that my opponent presented in order to bring about critical thinking, in order to change people minds, and in order to foster intelligent thinking and education, which is the whole purpose of debate.PRO: "It would be like playing a game of chess, only to argue that a knight shouldn't be able to be move in a L shape to win the game."The reason that Knight movements are followed in chess is that doing so is helpful for gameplay. My opponent gave no reasons why rules are useful to debate, and definitely no justifications backing up his claim that rules are more important than usefulness itself.Additionally, my opponent makes a mistake. Classic chess practitioners changed the rules of chess many years ago to form what we now call "chess." The "castling," "en passant," the pawn moving forward two spaces, and pawn promotion are all relatively recent inventions [1, 2, 3]. The rules of chess DO change in order to promote usefulness, effectiveness, and fun. PRO: "My opponent fills his rounds with useless poems and statements about freedom..."My opponent called "Invictus," one of the greatest and most famous poems of all time, "useless." My opponent likewise calls Nelson Mandela's amazing speech facing his execution "useless." However, my opponent calls the RuLe ThAt EvErY oThEr LeTtEr Be CaPiTaLiZeD so important that breaking it merits an automatic loss.PRO: "Now, I will say one more thing, my opponent says I set this debate up with slim chance for my opponent to win. That is clearly false. How hard is is to tYpE lIkE tHiS, not contest a rule, and just use the first round for acceptance?"(IMPORTANT) My opponent has made a new argument that typing with every other letter capitalized is easy. My response:1. If this rule is so easy to follow, THEN WHY DID PRO MAKE IT ONLY APPLY TO CON!? This is clearly unfair.2. In this debate con completes 3 rounds with 8000 characters each (7500 without spaces), for a total of *22,500 letters.* There is no program to automatically capitalize a letter. Therefore, my opponent would have me manually capitalize 11,250 letters individually. IF EVERY EDIT TOOK 1 SECOND, THE EDITS WOULD TAKE OVER 3 HOURS! Additionally, if I make ONE ERROR, I would be breaking the rules and lose the debate. Are the rules fair? No. Hard to follow? Absolutely.3. The unfairness of my opponent’s rules incited me to accept the challenge (but not pro's framework) in the first place. This rule is a prime example of why one should not follow the rules mindlessly or automatically.PRO: "The reason my opponent lost this debate is because the debate was set up like a game."My opponent completely ignored my arguments on why debate should never be considered a game. ***Pro says the same thing over and over again. Pro never says why following the rules means there should be an automatic loss. My opponent also ignores my section on voters. I have shown how voters are free to choose what arguments they think ought to win based on their ideas of fairness and morality. My opponent does not respond to this argument. My opponent does not give a single reason for why breaking the unfair rules forces voters to vote a certain way.My opponent never justifies his assertion that rules are more important than arguments, ethics, morality, and even debate within this so-called "game." I, in contrast, point out that no rules are above reproach, and that sometimes breaking the rules better fulfills debate's very purpose.The "rules" of this debate are impossible to follow and unfair (11,250 individual edits).I assert that debate is about changing the world for the better, not following rules. I show that votes for me will change the debate culture for the better and make the world more ethical.My opponent ignores all of my arguments.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(chess)#History[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(chess)#History_of_the_rule