Quote Debates are actual debates

Ethos is making an argument through an appeal to expertise (like saying im right because a doctor says so) and then Pathos is an emotional appeal. Both these are legitimate forms of making an argument and thus, since quotes can do both, quotes have some appeal as to why they are better. "However, a quote debate is comparing which quote is better than your opponents." There are many topics open for debate asking things like Util is superior to deontology or things like that, comparative topics exist all the time. Proving why one is better than the other is necessarily the way you win comparative debates. Since quote debates are comparative debates, comparing the two legitimately is considered a debate. I'm comparing between two things. "Whilst debates can turn into strings of assertions, they are often logically backed." Quote debates have some kind of topic. The quotes themselves have some link. That link to the topic is the loogical backing for the quote and thus they are logically backed in terms of the topic. "In all debates, all arguments have to be made." I would like to ask my opponent to what extent? Do i have to warrant my warrant? And then that one and that one and that one... The point is there is always some base assumption that can be questioned. My argument is that the quote is the original argument as to why pro/con wins the round because the topic questions who has the funnier/more serious quote. Thus there is a base level of argumentation made and appeal made to the topic itself. Thus the assumed argument (aff/neg has better quotes) IS backed up by evidence (quote) just like this debate starts with a topic (quote debates are real debates) and then arguments (like this one) "If the resolution states my quote is better than yours, then you have to explain why." Ok. I was going off quote debates that just post a quote. But if there is an explanation to the quote then the Pro wins this debate because in a comparative weighing topic, analysis as to why one is better than the other is one signal it is a debate. I could argue blue is better than green for instance and we could debate over that. Similarly if the CON says that quote debates allow one to include justifications then it is obvious that the topic is actually a debate. "If you cannot answer Why?, then it is left to the judge, and it turns to what the judge perceives as better, not what is actually better." 1. There is no objective way to determine that anyways, look at all these topics on debate.org, most are not a 109-0 win. There is always some degree of subjectivity to a debate round (as there will likely be in this one). My opponent gives no reason to why debates necessarily have to have an objective standard. 2. Quote debates are objective in that they provide a link to the topic and the superior argument is voted off of (quote) 3. The rebuttal is in the form of competing impacts... ill explain in the next section. "Although there are few debates such as Proliferation treaties vs. National Sovereignty, giving an impact is still not a proper debate. There, in all debates, is a certain amount of explaining to do regarding why you think your side is better than the others." Quick debate 101 arguments are constructed claim-warrant-impact the impact bieng the reason why the argument is pertinent for the topic. Thus the arguments can be refuted at any of those levels. What im referring to is refuting it at the impact level by saying "Whats happening on my side is more important." This is a common debate strat. But now on to the argument specifically on the impact wieghing "Posting a statement with impact followed by a statement with greater impact does not constitute as rebuttal. E.G. Hurricanes vs. Snowstorms PRO: Hurricanes can destroy houses CON: Snowstorms can close down power stations and all electricity" My argument is that since debates can devolve into assertion debates (which my opponent says have implicit impacts) then these assertions clash to the extent of magnitude. In the above debate CON basically granted that PRO's would happen but asserted a worse impact. Almost everyone would agree the above is a debate (Snowstorms vs Hurricanes). Two competing impacts give judges reason to vote pro or con and thus provide some way to evaluate a debate. A perfectly logical strategy in a debate is to concede one of your opponents arguments will happen but claim it does not matter because there is something inherently worse going to happen. These quotes represent an impact (laughing/crying) and thus the more sever of the two wins as in a debate with concessions (or one of the two could say that quote was not funny or whatnot) This means that this is a debate and is determined by evaluating impacts. "Firstly, I did not assert all debates have contradictions. I simply showed the lack of contradictions in quote debates, thus distancing them from actual debates. My opponent claims he can write a one sentence argument without a contradiction, however, I simply assert that an actual debate has room for a contradiction, whereas a quote debate does not." Exactly - debates don't necessitate contradictions - they are not a necessary part of debate and thus since we are evaluating the quote debates based on the definition of debate then this argument should play no part. If most people could walk and there was the ability to walk for almost everyone, that does not mean a person who can not walk is not human. Second i would say that a quote that is not topical could fall into this category. The third argument was basically saying that contradictions are not necessary in a debate. So here is how i win 1. Quote debates are comparative debates backed up by warrents for why one side is funnier, those warrants are the quotes 2. Impacts can be weighed on the quotes in terms of humor or seriousness and thus are comparative - rebuttals occur in terms of outweighing the other debater 3. Since my case is functioning to prove my opponent wrong, my opponent must take out my case to win the round and since he does not adequately do this i win the round. I urge a ballot for PRO