deseptive flaw in debateing system

( It seems my opponent did not realise that those case examples I provided were meant as evidence. I would like to point out that was intended to be so.) Interpretation of what's being argued: Overall yes, always not necessarily. Responses: 1) Regarding my opponents point that the benefit of making up the resolution to some extent counters the last word advantage. My response is 2 fold, a) statistical, b) reason: a)clear statistical data showing that there is a last word advantage. (these stats were not provided previously bec. I didn't have them.) The following is a quote from Ore-Ele: "Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500 debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%." b)I understand where my opponent s coming from but I still maintain my position. My opponents point would be true if you agree to debate then made the resolution, but the way it works is that the resolution is made and the contender chooses to debate that resolution. There is a statement that 2 people chose/ agreed to debate what difference does it make who made the statement. 2) I am not shore I clearly understand this point but I can hear something might be in it I ask my opponent to clarify in the next round for my benefit as well as any reader who is unclear on the point being made. Regardless of exactly what the point being made is the previously mentioned state takes care of it. 3)To my opponents final argument in the reason section, my response is 2 fold: a)reason, b)statistical. a)What benefit is there to a "pre-emptive" strike what difference does it make if the point is made in the 1st round or the second round. In fact it seems to be the opposite pre-emtive strikes are disadvantageous, The following is a quote from Roy lathem among the most experienced debaters on ddo:" ...presenting a strong case opening R1 scares away good debaters, who worry about winning...". Another quote: "Incidentally, a big problem I have with instigating is that when my opening case is revealed, often good debaters won't take it and the challenge expires. That means the work in preparing a case is wasted. That's true even when the person agrees to debate the subject ahead of time. I got J.Kenyon to agree to debate the border fence, but once he saw my case he let the challenge expire. My new approach is make the first round for acceptance only in order to conceal the case." b)There previous mentioned state quoted from Ore_Ele. statistical evidence: My opponent makes good points with regard to statistics. which is why I attempted to bring many different statistical analysis. Any problem with statistical analysis has been taken care of by, my now mantra from Ore_ele, "Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500 debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%." My opponents final point in which he quotes Roy, is in my opinion his most valid argument. My responses are as follows: 1)With such a large gap of nearly twice as many contenders to instigators winning can hardly be blamed on BoP alone. 2) BoP is often shared (or sole the contenders). 3) I ironically point to my opponents point that there are reasons why instigator would have advantage, and despite these reasons there is such a large gap in the winning rates can hardly be blamed on BoP alone. 4)Lastly since I have countered on the reason front, that there is a last word factor, and my opponent even seems to agree to the reasoning on some level, and the statistical evidence points to a contender advantage, it would seem reasonable that it is indeed this "last word factor" which is contributing to that large imbalance, even if it is not the sole reason.