The "Flick" attack should be continued as a valid touch

If we ever meet on the piste I will ensure that he leaves it looking like a Christmas tree *evil laugh*. Summary & Defence of Positive CaseC1. Defining a “flick” is subjectiveNote that he photo I provided is an extreme flick example, the vast majority of flicks are nowhere near this obvious. Furthermore, it was never my contention that all flicks were unrulable, only that what defines a flick is subjective. Pro appeals to the point-in-line being the arbiter, but ignores that the videos of foil fencers, fencing regularly with no flicks, makes such a position untenable, since even a “point-in-line” has a tonne of flexing and bending of the blades which makes naïve judgements impossible. Furthermore, Pro drops my arguments that a referee judging more marginal cases is going to have a much harder time, and that it would inevitably lead to many unfair referee calls (and in fencing, not making a call is just as harmful as making a call, since not making a call indirectly penalises the opposing foilist) in an already stressful and sensitive environment. Pro between the lines concedes that there is a large level of subjectivity in determining what a disqualifiable “flick” is – which is enough to establish this contention. Voters need only weigh the impacts here. C2. Increases refereeing difficultyCon’s rebuttal here ignores the context and bulk of my argument on the number of factors that a fencing referee already has to deal with. Con never contests here that adding this ruling would increase refereeing difficulty (which was the point of my contention) – he has only disputed its impact. We already have problematic capacity for errors in judging to adversely impact the result of a duel – so why should we make a problem (which Con has not contested exists) worse>C3. Flicks have a high skill barrier to be effectiveCon has dropped my arguments that prohibiting flicking would remove a valuable part of a high-level foilist’s repertoire – which is already an impact by itself. If we banned the backhand slice from the game of tennis, then I don’t think it takes much argument that this negatively impacts the game from a technical and spectator’s point of view. Con brings up the issue of safety, which I had already addressed with data in my previous round as unfounded. Empirical facts trump theory and speculation. There are more technical reasons why injuries from flicks are unlikely, but I can no longer present new material. Please note that the data I presented both encompasses injuries in practice (which constitutes nearly 3/4 of all fencing injuries) and fencing in tournaments. Thus his arguments against injuries in practice (in order to flick more effectively) must directly contend with this. C4. Flicks are a solved problemCon drops my points that the change in fencing timings essentially solved the problem of flicking (which was not a problem for the reasons Con posits). The fact that something is a problem doesn’t mean that the something needs to be eliminated. Summary of Rebuttals & Negative CaseR1. SafetyWhile I understand that Con could not present new material to counter my rebuttals here, I will extend my previous rebuttals. They factually disprove Con’s position on safety. Given that this is Con’s only real substantive contention, then without this Con’s case falls apart. Furthermore, one must also consider the knock-on effects of assuming back-of-the-head safety as a sufficient cause for prohibiting the flick, since other traditional fencing moves have a risk of in theory causing the same injury, or worse (since flicks can virtually never cause a fatal injury via. broken blade). R2 & 3. Right of Way &Out of TimeI feel I have sufficiently demonstrated that these contentions do not actually demonstrate what is required to fulfil the resolution. One could fully accept both these contentions but only be left with affirming that the rules need to be changed on the right-of-way regarding flicks, but not on prohibiting them altogether as valid touches. These contentions can be disregarded. R4. Nuts & Bolts (Spirit of the Game)Even if one fully accepts this contention – it is very low impact – since the spirit of the game I have already argued is plastic, and divorced from idealism, and has changed significantly over time. Also I have argued that the original spirit of the game is factually false due to observations in epee (the only fencing weapon I had hardly fenced myself, for these exact reasons). Fencing is no longer about running your opponent through. Thus, this at best only provide a weak-impact arhument which clearly introducing referee bias, problems, and difficulty is not going to stand. R5. AnecdoteThe impacts of his anecdote need to be weighed against the alternatives. Pain from flicking is not exclusive to flicking, it is inherent to any fencing move done incorrectly (or even correctly, as my own anecdote attests). I have shown a double standard in Con’s anecdote as a result, since several acceptable actions now which indeed could have serious fatal consequences are not chastised. Thus, his anecdote is on dubious grounds. OverviewWhile Con did have some important impacts to consider regarding safety, I have sufficiently shown these can be disregarded on a factual level. The next most important impacts I argue are whether or not it is fairly implementable, and I have sufficiently demonstrated this is not the case. Because my impacts outweigh’s Con’s impacts, even if Con’s contentions were valid and sound, voters ought to vote for Pro. I thank Con for a very fun (and bankrupting) debate!