Pick your own debate 2!

"My opponent's final list of counterpoints are nothing but a rehash of assertions that he has consistently failed to substantiate throughout this entire debate." Um, you're simply not making sense here. Dude, I responded similarly because you're the one who took what you previously said, changed the wording, and added an analogy. Just because you make it look nicer and longer doesn't mean it's any more sensible. So the one who initiated rehashing sh-t around here clearly wasn't me. Firstly, you're arguing about interpretation of the resolution. I responded. The "crux" of what I said was "There's one set meaning for a "resolution"; therefore, there's one correct interpretation," which you still haven't responded to, so that point stands, and that, really, is all I need for that little point of yours to be meaningless. You picked up for mongeese's morality arguments, but those arguments had nothing to do with the meaning of the resolution iamadragon had in mind, which is the point of the whole debate. And yet, you're trying to penalize iamadragon for that? mogeese, if anyone, should be "penalized" for not comprehending the true meaning of iamadragon's "resolution." It's like you're blaming iamadragon for mogeese missing his point. Nonsensical. I don't see how I've failed to "substantiate" anything. You haven't even put up anything against my "refutations," you only used the same argument over again, while completely ignoring what I said. I've given my reasons as to why your arguments lame, and summarized them above. Your analogy was redundant; the point of it is the same stuff you were previously saying, and that I rebutted. I also refuted your analogy to go along with the other stuff, too, though, and you've said nothing. "Instead of pointing out the flaw in my analogy, my opponent simply states that it is wrong, with no justification whatsoever." Yes, I did justify it. Here: "mongeese made arguments around his interpretation, sure. We agree there completely. But you're under the impression that mongeese's interpretation was inherently equal in nature at iamadragon's, which I don't understand at all. Like I said, the "resolution" has an objective meaning; iamadragon had a clear-cut idea in his mind when he created that debate over what was the whole point. Since he's the one starting the debate, it's up to him what the point is, and mongeese's distortions and interpretations of it are irrelevant to what the actual point is." "What my opponent fails to understand is that PRO's job is to uphold the burden and CON's job is to discredit PRO." How does this refute what I said? Plus, how can con discredit pro when pro's arguments aren't necessarily refuted by what con said..? If an argument starts up over statistics in baseball, and someone days "these are good stats relative to these," and someone says "but he did it immorally!" how does that change that player's statistics relative to the other players? His accomplishments are independent of morality; math and morals are pretty distinctly different fields. "Although MG was arguing his interpretation of the resolution, it is still a valid interpretation. He did not have to use any semantic tricks or change any definitions in order to do so, it said what it said and I illustrated how it was valid. My opponent has said nothing to attack the core of my explanation." Most of my argument has "attacked" that point. You've just said that over again after I made the "objective resolution" arguments, which are talked about above. "My opponent then rebuts my assertion that IAAD has no credible source simply by pasting IAAD's source. What my opponent failed to understand is that I was attacking the credibility of his single provided source on the rampant use of steroids, not the existence of it." You simply called the source "untrustworthy," and gave no rationale. The only onus is on you for actually saying that. You make a claim, then back it up. Why isn't it trustworthy? You haven't told me why yet; you've just mentioned it "in passing." "My opponent states that moral implications have nothing to do with the rules. That's true." And that's really all that needs to be said here. "This indicates that the debate is inherently about whether or not an act SHOULD be done in accordance to some moral code." No, in the context of the resolution, it means that stats of player a = stats of player b if player a did steroids, and all else is equal. That's all. The "in assessing those players' talent relative to other MLB players" bit kinda makes that obvious. You've repeated yourself constantly and haven't addressed my refutations to those points, which I've been over...despite saying you did, which is odd, but meh....