This debate has one round.

[1][2] While I appreciate his unique and spectacular ideas on these topics, I would like to demonstrate to other debaters how pointless debates of this kind actually are. In order to show that, I will completely rebut my opponent's constructive case, and I will present my own. Since my opponent would not be able to argue against my case due to the format of this debate, my case will be the only one left standing and I will win this debate by default. Without further ado, let's get right into it. RebuttalFirstly, I would like to show the complete irrationality of my opponent's case. 1. Pro states that "This debate has one round because, as you can see, it only has one round". Note that this is an example of circular logic - my opponent bases his conclusion that this debate has only one round on the premise that this debate has only one round. Moreover, my opponent's argument excludes blind people ("as you can see"), for they cannot actually see. Even if this argument were logically sound, it would not convince blind people. Thus, my opponent's case is logically flawed and fundamentally incomplete.2. Pro also states that "There is one speech for Pro, and one speech for Con, which constitutes a single round". Let's look up the primary definition of the word speech:Speech - the faculty or power of speaking; oral communication; ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture [3]Note that this debate consists only of written text, and that no speaking, oral communication or the expression of thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gestures takes place. Thus, this argument by my opponent is formed using a false premise. Since the premise is false, this argument is flawed and it thus cannot offer any support to my opponent's position that this debate consists of a single round. Sure, he may have had a point if this were a video debate, but, tragically for him, this is actually a written debate.3. Pro continues his case with this third assertion: "There is also a big red sign off to the right which says "Round 1," but there is no similar sign saying "Round 2. " Therefore, this debate only has one round. " While my opponent is correct in noting the presence of a red Round 1 sign and the lack of a Round 2 sign, my opponent failed to demonstrate how these signs would be relevant to his conclusion that this debate has only one round. The presence or lack of these signs may be due to other reasons. Someone, for instance, could have put them there in order to distract my opponent so that he would make these flawed arguments. Or, someone could have put them there just because they look cool. Or maybe it's just a bug/glitch with the site - we are all familiar with all the frequent errors and crashes, so this would be no surprise. My opponent never analyzed such possibilities, so his conclusion is irrational, since he hasn't evaluated all scenarios. It is simply a non-sequitur.4. "I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. " I really doubt whether you looked forward to a rebuttal of this kind. Note that all of my opponent's sentences have been shown to be flawed in one way or another. My opponent's case has thus no logical support - it is effectively non-existent and all I have to do to win this debate is to provide just a single argument. Here we go. .. The One And Only Ultimate ArgumentI will now elegantly prove that this debate consists of two rounds using one single screenshot: Note the grey italic text at the bottom, which says "This round has not been posted yet. " It is therefore obvious that each argument/response by either Pro or Con is considered as a stand-alone round. My opponent's case is Round 1. And this case of mine that you are reading right now is Round 2. Thus, there are two rounds in total in this debate. This piece of evidence is all that is needed. I have shown my opponent's arguments to be utterly flawed, and I have empirically supported my own case that this debate has two rounds. Closing StatementsI cannot thank my opponent enough for making this debate a reality - it is truly a wonderful, one of a kind, eye-opening experience. I believe that all of us have much to learn from the insights demonstrated by both sides during this debate. Perhaps the most important take-home message is this: do not create mini debates with silly resolutions. Vote Con! Sources[1] . http://www.debate.org...[2] . http://www.debate.org...[3] . http://www.dictionary.com...