Resolved: The Angry Video Game Nerd is better than the Irate Gamer.

There have been misunderstandings between what each of us has interpreted from each other's arguments. I hope to clear these up while showing how Pro has not fulfilled his burden while I have fulfilled mine. My opponent first claims that I am going off topic and attacking grammatical mistakes. To address the claim of me attacking grammatical mistakes, I urge you to read my first round argument. Nowhere do I have an attack that involves a bad use of grammar on my opponent's part. If you do not feel like reading the argument, simple press "Ctrl + F" and search for the words "grammar, grammatical, mistake". You will find none of these words in my first round argument. Thus, my opponent's claim is wrong. To stay on topic, I simply need to negate my opponent's arguments and thus the resolution. As that is all that I did in my previous argument, I did not go off topic. My opponent then questions what I am advocating calling it "vague" and claiming it does not fulfill my burden of refutation. To fulfill my burden of refutation, I simply need to negate my opponents arguments and the resolution. Please note that to fulfill my burden, I do not need to negate the WHOLE resolution. So, while advocating the polar opposite of the resolution is acceptable and probably the most common attack of choice, it is not the only suitable one. Here is my opponent's resolution "Resolved: The Angry Video Game Nerd is better than the Irate Gamer". It states that the AVGN is beyond a doubt better than the IG. I am conflicting with the fact that it is certain that AVGN is better than the IG. I advocate that while it might be true, it is not certain. My opponent thus needs to prove with conclusive evidence that it is certain that AVGN is better than the IG. I do not know how much clearer I can make it. I also add that while my opponent is free to use the areas of analysis that he has given, these certainly are not the only one allowed in the debate. Moving on, the quote my opponent gives simply states that from context clues and the names of the AVGN and the IG that they have the same basic character. If this was misinterpreted as a personal attack against my opponent, I am sorry. It was not meant that way. Vague pronouns can do that. If the AVGN and the IG have a different basic character, please correct me so we can be on the same page about the subjects we are debating. My opponent then says in the next paragraph that he meant that the IG tries to copy rather than does copy. Fine by me, but I can only attack what I see. We both have the burden of saying exactly what we mean. With that aside, I urge you to look at my opponent's first sentence of the aforementioned first paragraph "Fine, Irate is not better because he simply TRIES TO copy the AVGN". Notice how he says that the fact IG tries to copy only supports that Irate Gamer is not better than AVGN. As this is not what my opponent must advocate in order to fulfill his burden of proof and is off-topic, anything concerning IG's copying must be ignored. My opponent then suggests that this quote ("His rants are funnier, he has more clever dialogue, and he uses clever settings to add to the comedy.") fulfills his burden of proof. Unfortunately, baseless conjectures do not count as evidence. To counter your statement I contend that his (AVGN) rants are not funnier, he does not have more clever dialogue, and he does not use clever settings to add to the comedy." Until my opponent can bring empirical evidence to prove his conjectures, they have been successfully contended and must be ignored. My opponent then gives two links to videos and lists the similarities. As, I have already shown that any arguments dealing with similarities/copying should be ignored, this should also be ignored. Although I will analyze my opponent's next statements, I challenge him to find evidence to support his statements (ex. Evidence that AVGN gets much more angry). Otherwise, these are baseless conjectures and must be ignored. "Also, the AVGN gets much more angry" Until my opponent shows how this makes AVGN better, this is irrelevant. "It feels like the Irate is forcing jokes. AVGN's are much more subtle." I contend that this makes IG better as he lets those who are not smart enough to get subtle jokes to be humored. "Plus, the AVGN uses video dialogue from the movie that fits perfectly to enhance the mood." This simply means that IG is so good he does not need the video dialogue. As I have successfully refuted my opponent's arguments, fulfilled my burden, and showed how my opponent has not fulfilled his, I am done for this round and await my opponent's rebuttal.