Online debates are better than real life debates

As a brief road map, I will first refute my opponent's rebuttal and then I shall refute his contentions. Firstly, in response to my opponent's framework, he states that this is 'unnecessary work' but the time that goes into setting up a debate will eventually pay off, as having an opponent and judge with you in the room greatly improves the quality of the debate, as stated in my case (see round 1) My opponent states that debating doesn't improve your personality, and instead of making you a calm person, it makes you argumentative. He brings up that other speech events such as Dramatic Interpretation will better make you a calm and well composed person, but he doesn't give any examples, other than the fact that it is not a debate event. However, he doesn't mention that in a real life debate, it is crucial to maintain your calm and composure under the provocations of debating back and forth with a person, instead of an online debate where you type your round, wait two days, get a response, then type your next round. Getting argumentative in a debate will get you nowhere, the judge will instantly mark you down. Furthermore, he states that the main point of debate is analysis. Yes, analysis is needed in order to debate, but debate consists of more parts. To be a good debater, not only do you need analysis, you need speaking abilities such as being able to speak at a good volume, speaking while maintaining eye contact, speaking with consistency, and as I brought up in an earlier contention, you must be able to think on the spot . Yes, while a debate online will provide a better 'analysis' you do not get the proper real life speaking skills that are only attainable in a physical debate. My opponent states that 'thinking on the spot is not actually a major life skill.' Yes, it's not a major life skill but it's definitely a good life skill to have. While lying is one example, think about something as simple as telling someone a made up story. You must make up this story by thinking on your feet; you don't get two days to create a plot with surrounding details. While your story may not be as good as a story which you had two days to create, your story will please the audience nonetheless. He also mentions that physical debates do not train this skill, because debaters come prepared with written blocks and skills. I quote, "In an actual round, they are just essentially stringing together blocks with transition words." Coming up with a speech 'on the spot' is not merely "stringing together blocks with transition words". In order to influence the judge that you are correct, you must provide a convincing speech, which can only be done with analysis. Speaking on the spot is easier said than done. He gives an example stating that Extemp. would provide better training for speaking on the spot. However, in Extemp, you get 30 minutes to prepare your speech as well as to research, and so this is pretty much the same as pre-written blocks, therefore a physical debate will provide the same 'training.' Now, I shall go over my opponent's contentions. In his first contention, he states that online debates allow for more analysis, since you get a bigger time frame to give your next 'speech' or round. However, I have already proved that analysis isn't the only skill you need in order to become a good debater(see above). You must be able to think on the spot, to maintain eye contact, to have good speaking consistency, etc. Therefore, a physical debate is better. In his second contention, he says that the time required to set up a physical debate is not worth it. This is not a key issue, because scheduling a debate is not very difficult, it takes around one hour, and only on one day. He brings up that money is also an issue, because as a debater you are required to pay entry fees, and to pay for food. As a debater, you don't have to debate in a tournament; in a tournament you will only get a set number of rounds (ie four rounds in my League I tournament). If I want to debate, I will set up a debate with somebody else, and debate at a public location, rather than having to pay for a tournament. You can get far more rounds by debating practice rounds, and you will get better as a debater by doing more debates. Food is a trivial expense, it's not like if you didn't go to a tournament you wouldn't have to eat. Lastly, my opponent brings up that online debates give both a higher quantity of practice and a higher quality of practice. He says that a debate round takes a large amount of time, and since you must stay for the entire duration of the round, online debates are better. Usually a debate round takes around an hour, so with 24 hours in a day and 168 hours in a week, I'm pretty everyone can spare an hour of their life. He also states that online debates exercise the same skills as an actual physical debate, which I have refuted above. Therefore, and for all these reasons, we urge a negative vote on today's ballot.