Pick your own debate 2!

If possible, I would like to request that the SOURCES points be allocated to the debater who made the better argument, since this debate is a critique of another debate and as such, does not require any additional sources. Is this OK with my opponent? I'd like to give a short intro. This debate is about whether or not IAAD (Iamadragon) deserved to win his debate against MG (Mongeese) on steroids and MLB statistics. Let us take a look at the resolution for that debate: Resolved: The statistics of those Major League Baseball players who, in the late 1990s until 2004, otherwise considered the height of the "Steroid Era" by MLB fan, were known users of PEDs or who were almost certainly using PEDs, should still be held as legitimate in assessing those players' talent relative to other MLB players. Next, a quick summary of each round: R1P: Questioning effects of steroids in boosting baseball stats, Questioning the imbalancing of baseball stats. R1C: Steroid use shows intent of moral evil R2P: But the statistics are legitimate. R2C: But the statistics represent moral evil. R3P: But the statistics are legitimate. R3C: But the statistics represent moral evil. What we have here is not a case of MG completely ignoring IAAD's argument, or misinterpreting anything. This is a case of two debaters reading the resolution in a different way. When people are debating a resolution in which something should or should not be done, it must be defined within a particular context. IAAD is arguing under the context that the scores should be held legitimate because comparing players to players would not be affected. His focal value is on the legitimacy of the statistics. MG is arguing under the context that the scores should NOT be held as legitimate because there are moral implications for cheaters not being punished, even if the cheating is confined to a game. He argues that the moral implications extend beyond baseball. His focal value is on how this act of legitimizing the statistics would be a moral evil. As you can see, both IAAD and MG were talking past each other the entire debate. Neither side really addressed the fact that they were, in essence, arguing two different but valid and reasonable interpretations of the same resolution. Both sides expressed confusion and frustration over the fact that the other was focusing on something they believed to be irrelevant, but by the end of the debate, neither IAAD nor MG knew why. Note the comment section of the debate. The RFD left by ToastofDestiny shows that he has a strong position and understood MG's argument. He read the resolution the same way MG did. MG's arguments were not irrelevant. It is just that both debaters read the resolution a different way. Both debaters made good points, but they were arguing different resolutions. This does not reflect bad conduct because both IAAD and MG had interpretations that were valid. No semantics arguments, no underhanded tricks. Just mutual confusion. As it stands, IAAD did not deserve the win. As Instigator and Proponent, he bore the burden of proof. He set forth a resolution and made arguments. MG offered his arguments against the resolution. The proper course of action for IAAD would be to identify the misreading and to correct MG as to what the resolution is. He did not demonstrate that he understood this, he simply assumed that MG's point was irrelevant and continued arguing when in reality, MG's interpretation of the resolution is correct. IAAD continued arguing without addressing the fact that the resolution was being negated by his refusal to do anything but ignore MG's points. MG actually attempted to invalidate IAAD's notions that steroids do not increase baseball statistics and the notion of a level playing field. At the end of the debate, MG was right in his closing statements. IAAD ended up doing nothing but ignoring/rebutting MG's arguments while having his own points whittled down to uncertainty. I would say that given all this, MG actually won the debate, albeit marginally. However, it would be more safe to say that it would actually be a tie. It is easy to see that my opponent simply was unable to see how this debate was not a clear and legitimate win, because he had a bias for IAAD (note the comments). Everything my opponent brought up about the irrelevancy of the immorality arguments shows this. Those points can be thrown out since it is clear that my opponent is reading the resolution the way IAAD did and thus, is blinded to the fact that an alternate and valid interpretation existed. My opponent's second half dealt with rebuttals to MG's points. Even if they are wrong, a debate is decided based on info the debaters bring up, not my opponent. As such, my opponent's entire introductory argument can be thrown out. He currently has no case. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.