My opponent is a better or at the very least equal debater with all factors combined.

YL attempts to show that I've used a red herring by quoting a statement I made in the previous round. However, this is the very statement that proves true certainty and true possibility to be mutually exclusive. Since he does not clarify how this statement is irrelevant, there is no reason to consider my opponent's accusation. If YL is not sure about the size of the squirrel, then his preemptive conclusions on the squirrel are regarded in his eyes as being within possibility. Indeed, the fact that he isn't sure about the size of the squirrel doesn't mean that one of the squirrels isn't larger. However, if he cannot use empirical means to show that one squirrel is larger, he cannot be certain about the size of the squirrel. Therefore, he would have to acknowledge that one squirrel was POSSIBLY larger than the other; whether or not the squirrel is truly larger is COMPLETELY irrelevant. If he is unable to empirically prove it, he must regard his conclusions as being in the realm of possibility. This applies for this debate too. YL drops my accusation concerning the straw man, so you're free to extend it. Re Spreading: YL uses straw man by claiming that I advocated that all arguments were developed in a short time slot. He goes about disproving the straw man by citing the "constructive portions of the debaters" speeches. This completely overlooks the claim I made in the previous round that specifically referred to the constructive portions of the speeches being excluded. Basically, he does not demean the actual clash between both contestants in a CX. Thus, his "round 4" objection on this matter can be overruled. Re A: YL cites what the debater "supposedly" must do, but does not even attempt to dispel the strategies I listed. Therefore, he concedes to them. Re beautiful sounding speakers: This is a red herring; the skills of the debaters don't increase merely through relying on fancy pitches in their voices. Re B: YL yet again overlooks my point. I had insinuated that your goal is to keep your opponent from being able to refute all of your arguments. This can be done through making your reasoning "air tight" or simply presenting numerous arguments. 2nd, I pointed out that such difficulty is beneficial as it helps a debater argue efficiently. I agree with him on the fact that this is more inherent in CX and it is for that reason that CX is more beneficial. Re Research: YL doesn't bother to explain how my point strengthens his, so you're free to dismiss his objection. As for stealing cases, this is easier to do in LD due to the fact that the actual research on the topic is of little significance. When it comes to CX, stealing cases can be detrimental as your opponent can easily expose your lack of knowledge/understanding on the topic during cross fires. During LD, your opponent will be most interested in focusing in on your logic instead. As for writing cases, I've addressed this with debaters commonly writing a case at the very last minute or stealing cases online. Re Research Emphasis: 1) 1st, while it's true that any card can be cut from any source, this doesn't mean that this will benefit a debater who decides to cite Esquire magazine on whether or not anti-global warming programs should be funded. Sources are cited to affirm their credibility. Citing a card from an unreliable source will serve as fodder for the other team in the following round. 2nd, if your card doesn't sync well with the conclusion you're making, your argument will merely be fodder for the other team. 2) I haven't ignored this. The problem is that merely "googling" to get the best evidence is not as easy as it sounds. 1st, to maintain your stability during cross fires, you have to have an in-depth understanding of the evidence you're talking about. This takes plenty of time. 2nd, you have to remember that nearly every single debater has access to google, so you're going to want a means of getting evidence that people don't typically have easy access to. For these 2 reasons, the issue of having to regularly maintain up-to-date-info is more difficult than simply browsing wikipedia for 5 minutes or stealing your case from lddebate.org Re Contradiction: Yraelz: ". . . like my opponent says, "winning mostly boils down to how well one's reasoning sounds" No false dilemma. If YL agrees that LD boils down to reasoning skills rather than the fruits of one's own research, he cannot suggest that LD has more of an emphasis on research than CX. He even insinuates that CX purely relies on cards. (ex: suggesting that a CX debater only needs 20 cards to win In other words, he is suggesting that CX relies is emphasized on research. Thus, he cannot claim that LD has a larger emphasis on research. Re Tactics: Incorrect. If I still condone the usage of "slimy tactics", neither of us would be worse in this department as we would both be equal. How often we use it is of little importance in this debate due to the fact that neither of us can evaluate the rate of usage. Re Deception: 1. 1st, LD and CX tournaments often being held at the same tournament is a non sequitur as it does not bring one to the conclusion that CX and LD tournaments have an equal number of lay judges. 2nd, I don't even need to know where the PRO lives to support my lay judge claim. Comprehending a CX round requires a set amount of skills that a typical person doesn't have; a judge needs to keep up with spreading as well as the many rules there are in CX. In LD, the tournament organizers can quickly go over the modicum of rules in LD with laymen. As for MT lay judges, tournaments sometimes rely on lay judges to ascertain the persuasive abilities of attorneys/witnesses similar to the manner of a real jury, so the he is wrong. He completely overlooks what I said regarding the content of CX so you're free to extend that. 2. YL must prove his innocence. After all, he made the claim that he uses slimy tactics in debates here. And the fact that he stated that he was certain to use these tactics when confronting judges whom he deemed laymen is certainly enough reason to consider this claim (considering that the Internet is filled with laymen).With this noted, you have plenty of reason to cast doubt on the his arguments Re Experience: 1 A) Red herring; it does not address/attack the idea of many of my opponents forfeiting. B) PRO states otherwise in this debate: http://www.debate.org... As you can see, he believes he won that debate and even provides reasons. 2. Read my rebuttals too. YL doesn't address the objection I made against his analogy during R3 so you are free to dismiss this analogy once more for the same reason. Re A). I replied to this before by stating that what's considered major/minor is merely left up to interpretation. YL attempts to hide this fault by saying we've discussed factors of great importance, but this is not really the case. Until he explains why theories behind High School CX/LD/MT are to be considered a decisive factor in determining who the better debater is, you have no reason to consider any of what the PRO has said on the matter. Re B) I declined YL's offer due to a far more important issue that I talk about above ; I'm not supplying the evidence he asks for because that would assume that I agree with his rendering of this matter on the issue concerning factors. Re Major Factors: YL doesn't explain why he declined my offer to explain how major/minor factors weren't left up to interpretation. In fact, he completely ignores it. The fact that he does this means that he concedes to the matter of major/minor being left up to interpretation. Therefore, he cannot say that he has used the major factors to prove that I am a better debater than he is. See the most recent entry on this webpage for closing statements: http://dr-logic.livejournal.com...