unfair advantage in debateing

This is starting to appear to just be a case of not being happy with how votes turned out. My opponent, for every example, has pointed to a debate the he lost, including another debate that he debated with me and lost. However, since I'm already in this, I will have to move on. I will start by addressing my opponent's points, then each of his sources (previous debates). Since my opponent uses "a)" and "b)" too frequently to use as address points, I'll simply quote. "forfeiture of instigator" My opponent states that we need more indepth stats for this, and I totally agree. However, I do not have easy access to those stats, since forfeited debates do not show in the debate section and I do not have the time to check every single debate manually. I will say that based from personal experience, this is actually often the case. While I can do no more than ask people to take my word for it, each person is free to use their own personal experiences. "This reason doesn't resound strongly with me perhaps it is some what true but does not mach the tremendous gap in the nearly 2:1 difference in winnings of contender compared to instigator." I'm not sure which of my reasons he is refering to, but he did not address properly my claim (so I assume this goes to that claim) that contenders are, on average, more experienced than the instigators, 47 to 28. This difference of experience would logically lead to a difference in debate score results. This is also compiled by the fact that people are more likely to gather more experience if they do better. Rarely do poor debaters stick around and rack up huge numbers of losses (though there are a few examples). Every single debater in the 99th percentile has greater than a 50% win ratio. In fact, of the 14 debaters that have more than 100 debates, 13 of them are over 50% win rate (and 10 are over 75% win rate). My opponent has provided no logically reason as to why this difference of experience would not be a major factor in the difference of wins for the contender vs instigator. "Contender knows what he is up against." My opponent states that this is not always true. I agree, as I said in my last round, that they "many times" (as in, not every time) will know what arguments the instigator will throw out. Of course, they don't always know, but even if they only know 20% of the time, that is 20% more of the time than the instigator will know. And so that will also have an impact on the difference. "We don't have statistics on this. so we don't even know the extent to which it is true. My personal experience tells me it's not so prevalent to a large extent. Normally I would go with Ore_Ele as he has much more experience, but the fact that he has a bias here prevents me from doing so. I suppose the best solution is for the reader to make the best conclusion he can on this matter, as it is unclear." While we have no statistical measure for this, many voters will penalize people that add arguments in their last rounds as poor conduct (and dismiss any arguments made in that last round). Many cases, they even penalize debaters that bring things up in the second to last round, unless there was a reason that it was not brought up right away. Now moving on to my opponent's individual cases... http://www.debate.org... My opponent says that people were swayed by me "having the last word" even though my entire last word was me quoting him, and providing a three line summary of the debate. What most likely swayed most people (as per their RFDs) was the fact that my opponent was making arguments in my favor. http://www.debate.org... In this debate, we see that it was actually Truthseeker that was "harping over definitions." He provided no definitions at all, and when his opponent provided them in his R1, Truth did not contend, but provided no argument. All in all, no real arguments were started until R4, basically dooming the debate at that point. Few debates actually have such an unorganized start so this debate can hardly be considered a standard example. http://www.debate.org... Truth conceeded the original resolution to his opponent, and tried to continue by changing definitions. http://www.debate.org... As said by Cliff in his RFD, "there were too many points brought up and just whitewashed more so than explored. However Pro had the BoP and his presentation was in the form of lt;dr so was very difficult to maintain the inertia necessary to retain the argument." Spaming a huge number of arguments than collecting all the ones dropped and trying to claim victory is an abusive tactic designed to exploit the limited number of characters that we have. Cliff also clearly says that it was "tl;dr" meaning too long DIDN'T READ. It is hard to argue that people were swayed by the last word, when they say that they could barely read through your arguments. Now that the statistics, reasoning, and individual cases have been addressed. I will pass this back to my opponent. Thank you,