Debate.org is an excellent way to relieve an argumentative nature.

Line-by-line. Voters and Summarization comes again in R4. "Does it matter? Aside from the dorsel fin and ovary deifinitions[...]" What I can say is that excellent equals best when we're looking at the resolution. Since you provided no indication as to what Debate.org is excellent/superior in comparison to, then we must assume that Debate.org is excellent/superior to anything in its field, which, in this case, is "relieving an argumentative nature". Draxxt never explicitly said that excellent/superior equals best, true, but since he gave nothing to compare to in the words of the topic, the default is to compare to any and all things in that area. Debate.org simply is not excellent at relieving an argumentative nature. "I just proved that excellent and best are not synonymous." He didn't prove how they're not synonymous. He just said "there are other possibilities". And my response to that was "all other possibilities other than the one I have presented do not apply in this situation because of certain reasons"; certain reasons being all the responses I've made for why best is the same as excellent/superior in this debate. "Refer to my entire R2[...]" Again, all Draxxt is saying is that "there are other possibilities". Well sure, every word has tons of possibilities, but what gives a word definition is what context it is used in. I could call you a cabbage, but that wouldn't mean anything. I could call your entire family cabbages, but that wouldn't mean anything. But if I said "You're a cabbage, your family is full of cabbages, I hate cabbages and I'm gonna kill you all", then that word becomes a catalyst for dehumanization. The other thing on why many definitions don't matter is because plenty of words have many different definitions. At the point where we say "X has other definitions", then we could basically define words like "The" and "Also" as "Texas Hold Em" and "All Lions Scare Orthodontists", or ridiculous stuff like the ovaries and dorsal fins as my opponent mentioned for his definition of ‘superior'. That being said, you can refer back to my argument about how he didn't provide any comparison in the resolution and therefore we must compare with all things, resulting in "best", not "better". "I most certainly have fufilled the burden of proof, you have yet to tell me why the burden of proof may be wrong." The burden of proof is not "wrong", we just disagree on what it is. I say that he needs to show how Debate.org is best, and he says he needs to show how Debate.org is better than X Y Z things instead of best. This is why the definition of superior is prominent. Whoever wins the definition pretty much wins the debate. "Debate.org does not get you detention when you argue with someone." Arguing with authority does not get me in detention. "That is the beauty of debate.org, we aren't limited to previewed and pre-sanctioned debates[...]" Let's look to back to his definitions for a moment – Argumentative means "disputatious". I do not see how debate.org, allowing its users to create their own topics and stuff, relieves an argumentative nature. At best, its advantages over formal debate is what draxxt just said here – it relieves creative nature. And creative nature is not the same as argumentative nature. Even if they were the same, extend my impacts from formal debate: 1) Makes people think faster, 2) More creatively, 3) More strategically, and 4) Gives people the environment where they are surrounding by people who really want to do debate. All in all, superior in comparison to debate.org in terms of relieving an argumentative nature, and probably superior in the same way when compared to anything else. "Things would get very boring[...]" On the flow, this argument of his was originally for attacking schools that don't have a debate team. My refutation to that was that certain circumstances do not suddenly void the whole concept. Draxxt here talks about a situation where people do not get to go on debate tournaments. This is unresponsive to my contention, as it does not describe formal debate, but rather, a lack of formal debate. You can then extend my arg, because it still outweighs even though some people can't go to real tournaments. "I thought it would be nice to give a small token of exceptance. I have no authority to prevent them but I wanted to express my wish to them and to see if you wanted to do the same." Okay. Well, I think it'd be ineffective and if somethings neither effective nor fun, I don't do it.