Debate tournaments have a positive effect on debate.org.

The resolution is: Debate tournaments have a positive effect on debate.org. My opponent insisted in the last round that debate tournaments have a negative effect on DDO. This is not true. I don't have to prove anything. My opponent has the burden of proof to prove that debate tournaments have a positive effect on DDO. I only have to negate the resolution. I don't even need contentions to win this debate, I simply need rebuttals. +=+=+=+=+=+ REBUTTALS +=+=+=+=+=+ Ia1. >My opponent cites none of this and should thus be discarded. I could just as easily say that debaters have left this site due to tournaments. Without any evidence, this point doesn't hold any weight. Ia2. >No, that's not what appeal to novelty is, at all. It doesn't matter what you think appeal to novelty "ought to be applied to" either. I don't have to prove a negative effect for anything. You have to prove a positive effect to something new, or your argument is just an appeal to novelty. Ia3. >New members decrease revenue, crush friendships, and decrease the quality of debates. << === "Once again, the use of facebook, as well as other sites, aided the spreading of the DDO tournament." >Proof? Oh yeah, there is none. "Furthermore, some members are only/mostly interested in DDO with tournaments. Here are a few members as proof:" If some members are only interested in debate tournaments, then how are they positive for DDO as a whole? They only contribute to debate tournaments, but you're supposed to be making the argument that they are positive for DDO as a whole. === 1b2. >Like I said above, if they only stay for the tournaments, then they aren't positive for DDO as a whole. They're neutral at best. === "1. Debate tournaments take away time for participants to do other activities. a. There will be less participation on the forums. b. There will be less participation on normal debates." My opponent lets this point stand and says: "Neither of these are applied to why tournaments have a negative effect on debate.org. Even if you accept the idea, he doesn't give weight as to why the con side should be preferred." My opponent forfeits the above and says that there is no negative effect. If there is less participation, of course there will be a negative effect. === IIab1. >My opponent forfeits this point. I don't have to affirm a negative, my opponent has to affirm a positive. IIab2. "'Tournament Debates', as argued before, are better because there is a cumulative purpose." >Uhh, why is something cumulative better? IIa3. "Life could not be life without competition." >Non sequitur. No one likes cheesy quotes, amirite? === IIIa1. "Sure there is a cost, but there is also a benefit." >Ergo, it is neutral. Point for me. IIIa2. "Therefore, the benefits outweighed the cost." >Because of one specific instance between yourself and someone else? You refute yourself in IIIa1 anyway. IIIa3. "We need competition." >No, no we don't. Especially not forced competition. ========== C1.1. "I myself have been caught looking through other threads while posting something for the tournament." >Confabulation fallacy. Your personal experience isn't an universal rule. C1.2. >My opponent forfeits that there might be less participation. C1.3. >Un-cited statistics. C2. C3. >But of course, activity will go down, because of the lack of participation lost to the debate tournament. ========== " ---As a general argument, my opponent never really gave a direct link as to why debate tournaments have a negative effect on debate.org. He showed a lot of things that -could- happen, but never showed what -does- hap" >Like I said above, I don't have to prove anything (unlike you) even though I took it upon myself to do so. >My opponent used strictly anecdotal evidence and hearsay for his arguments. He cited nothing and failed to prove