Quote Debates are actual debates

"The extent the argument must be made is until (you feel) your argument is more logical than you're opponents" Big mistake - quote debates function in such a way, i feel my quote fits better than my opponents. Just to clarify the resolution in quote debates ask who has a funnier quote, sadder quote, etc. and thus a quote provides an argument as to HOW you have a better quote. Thus by posting a quote, a debater feels like they have accomplished all they need to win, they have found a better quote (since the judgement to what extent is made by them). Now this means that an argument is made to a good extent and links to the topic. THIS IS THE FIRST PLACE I WIN. "My opponent says the resolution is the argument and the quotes back it up" Ok maybe i made this argument confusing. I will clear it up now. The resolution implies the question "whose quote is better in x category" the quotes are the arguments as to why the quotes are better. Now to the comparison "Actual debate: Resolution ---> Argument" Quote debate Resolution ----> Quotes The quotes function in the same way as arguments, backing up pro or con to the resolution (Nickoboy1992 has better quotes than I-am-panda). Thus, this is the second place quote debates function as debates. "Im not sure what the pro is saying here" Ok i wont hold you responsible for this argument unless I make it understandable this time through. In the last round you made a mention to being able to explain the quotes. This means it functions in the same way as a debate like red is better than blue would function, through comparative analysis. SO if you are saying quote debates allow for explinations, there is absolutely no difference and no way to create such a difference. And the last time i checked, all a debate was was evidence tying back to a resolution. Rebuttals and all. "1. .. 2. .. 3. .. " His first point about the 109-0 is vote bombing only proves the point - there is no objective way to wiegh a debate in the first place meaning that clashing evidence, even if not explicitly wieghed is considered a debate. The evidence in the quote debates are the quotes which mean that it is a debate on this level as will. His second point about there being no rebuttal - first i would say look to the one round debates on debate. org, there is no rebuttal in those and they are debates, all a debate is is a set of conflicting claims used to convince an audience of one side or another. Secondly i would say the rubuttal is the next round of quotes to prove why one sides quotes ARE better than another. Finally i would say that this is not true as all i have to do is provide a larger impact. For example the argument earlier about the snow storm would have been a debate even though the impacts were not weighed. Sure it would be a nightmare for the judges but it is still a debate. Finally i would tell you such explicit weighing is only the mark of a good debater, not a necessary function in a debate. Ask any debate coach - there are debates in which one side completely disregards the other and asserts an impact without weighing. "con makes no gesture to indicate he is saying his impact is worse than his opponents" This is not nesicary in a debate. Implicit wieghing is just as good. most of the times really good national circuit LD debates come down to two competing impacts not excplicitly wieghed against. Another example of this is someone who attacks the entire opponents case and pulls out the impact without weighing and then the opponent successfully defends his case and tries the same. There are two competing impacts that have absolutely no way to choose which one is superior. Thus there is no function in debate that requires impact analysis. Two floating, non-compared impacts still function for a debate (although they are awful in terms of adjudication). Moreover look to any inexperienced debater only trying to rebuild his own case without doing anything or just reasserting his own case. In the case of two debaters like this, there are two competing impacts that are exactly the same as those in quote debates. "Debates can facilitate contradictions. " Can functionally means this argument is not nesisary for a debate. They dont have to be there meaning we dont have to look at this argument when determining if quote debates are actual debates. OK HERE ARE SOME ARGUMENTS I MADE NOT RESPONDED TO Quotes create argumentation through ethos and pathos meaning they are legitimate as arguments functioning back to a resolution. Remember there are multiple ways to make an argument. This argument was not responded to so DONT LET HIM MAKE A NEW RESPONSE SINCE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY FOR ME TO RESPOND SINCE THIS IS THE LAST ROUND. That would be akin to cheating. THIS is the number one place to vote for me becuase it means arguments can be made without logic. I. e. if i make an appeal to an expert then it can be considered my argument is superior. This is an unattacked reason as to why quote debates have argumentation. Moreover this means that quote debates can functionally have rebuttals in the form of ethos and pathos. THIS ARGUMENT BASICALLY SHOWS LOGIC IS NOT NEEDED FOR SOMETHING TO BE A DEBATE. ARGUMENTS CAN BE MADE IN TWO OTHER WAYS. therefore rubuttals can use quotes that have these elements that prove why an argument is superior. I WIN RIGHT THERE, THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANOTHER ROUND. MY OPPONENT CAN NOT RESPOND TO THAT ARGUMENT BECAUSE THIS IS THE LAST ROUND AND THERE IS NO WAY I CAN ANSWER ANY NEW ARGUMENTS. THE REASON THIS DEBATE HAD FOUR ROUNDS WAS SO THAT THERE WERE 3 ROUNDS TO DEVELOP AND REFINE ARGUMENTS. IF MY OPPONENT MAKES A NEW ARGUMENT AS TO WHY ETHOS AND PATHOS ARE NOT LEGITIMATE THEN YOU VOTE FOR ME BECAUSE HE IS BIENG UNFAIR SINCE HE HAS A POINT THAT I CAN NEVER REFUTE. YOU VOTE FOR ME OFF FAIRNESS BECAUSE THE VOTE AT THE TOP ASKS WHAT SIDE OF THE RESoLUTION WAS PROVED BETTER. IF THERE IS NO FAIRNESS, THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER FAIR SINCE THERE ARE WORD CONSTRAINTS, ETC. THUS YOU VOTE TO A. ENSURE FUTURE DEBATES ARE FAIR AND MY OPPONENT IS PENALIZED FOR CHEATING AND B. GIVE ME THE WIN BECAUSE I ARGUED THE RESOLUTION BETTER BECUASE THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD DO TO COMBAT SUCH UNFAIR PRACTICES (Note that argument only applies if my opponent makes a new argument to something he had not attacked before. Even if you dont buy it as a reason to vote for me, it is a reason to disregard new arguments. Even if you dont buy that i still win in other places) On my opponents voters 1) Quote debates do not contain an argument A. Other ways to argue (pathos and ethos) B. Implicit argumentation (my quotes are better because this is one of my quotes) 2) Quote debates do not contain rebuttal A. Other ways to argue - the rebuttal comes through Ethos and Pathos which are ways to prove why something is more important B. There is no need to explicitly weigh impacts therefore floating impacts are fine in a debate - quote debates have floating impacts as per A and B on number one. C. There does not need to be a rebuttal in a debate - look at one round debates. 3) No contradictions A. Contradictions are not needed or implied in a debate. My opponent only says they can be in a debate. Sure quote debates are not similar to those 90% of debates that do allow for contradictions but that does not mean they do not fall in the other 10% or whatever. Thus my opponent has to win off 1 and 2. VOTING ISSUES 1. There are other ways to make arguments (Ethos and Pathos) and all quotes have elements of one or the other 2. There is an implicit topic (my quotes are better than yours) and the way it is proved is by supplying quotes - there exists a topic and evidence 3. Quote debates contain impacts (my quote makes you laugh or cry) and thus there is a way to prove that one quote is superior to another.