It is not necessary to understand things to debate them well.

I accept the revised definition of debate. Reflected below is the revision. D2: To debate : to argue about. My opponent disagrees with the burdens I provided in R1. He claims that it is not fulfilling the resolution for me to simply show one instance of something being debated well without the person debating it having an understanding of it. It seems I must now define a term I thought rudimentary enough to not need one: D6: necessary : required to be done, achieved, or present; needed. (5) (5) http://www.askoxford.com... I must only show that understanding something isn't a REQUIREMENT to debate it well. If it is possible to debate something well without understanding it, then understanding it isn't necessary for debating it well. This burden is not unfair, since it is exactly what follows logically from reading the resolution and applying definitions where necessary. My opponent claims he has created over a thousand blades. I call his bluff; one cannot create over a thousand blades without first being the bone of his or her sword, as well as having a steel as his or her body and fire as his or her blood. Since my opponent has none of these attributes, we may fully discount his argument that he has created over a thousand blades. My opponent makes an argument about what constitutes debating something well, claiming that winning is not enough, one must hold one's ground against a debater who does understand. For the sake of this debate, I will accept my opponent's criteria for what constitutes debating something well. We now both agree on this. I assume that next, my opponent attempts to describe his >1k blades, claiming they are unaware of loss, nor aware of gain. This is much like me describing my plasma TV: meaningless, since I don't have one. I must state, though, that if I'd created over a thousand blades, I would have made them unknown to death, nor known to life. Since my previous cases did not fit this new definition of debating something well, you may consider them dropped. Congrats to my opponent for taking down some of my points. This means I have to go through the trouble of making more points, something I made clear that I would do in that last line of my R1. ==================== Hypothetical Cases: ==================== H3: Some resolutions are skewed in a way that one of the debaters has a significant advantage. It is very possible for this to lead to a debater who doesn't perceive the significance, explanation, or cause of the topic to in fact hold his ground against an opponent who does. H4: Debaters have varying levels of ability when it comes to logical reasoning. A debater who does not have an understanding of the topic could hold his or her ground against a debater who does by pointing out logical fallacies in his or her opponent's arguments, creating threads of logical reasoning that confound his or her opponent, or other means of debating the topic without staying focused on points that require a perception of the significance, explanation, or cause of the topic. H5: A debater who understands the topic can be unmotivated, and may not always debate with everything they have. Thus, it is very possible for a debater with no understanding of the topic to hold his ground against his unmotivated foe. To give an extreme example, someone with an understanding of the topic might not even bother making any solid points. He or she may not even bother to utilize his or her understanding at all, and thus, a debater without understanding of the topic could hold his or her ground against this opponent. H6: A debater with no understanding of a topic can be told exactly what to say by someone who does. Thus, against an opponent who has an understanding, this debater would be on even ground, and could easily hold his ground [albeit with the help of someone else]. This debater is still debating, since he is the one arguing. --- D7: To argue : to exchange diverging or opposite views heatedly. (6) (6) http://www.askoxford.com... --- As you see, arguing does not have to do with the creation of the ideas, but the exchange with the opponent. Therefore, in H6, the one with no understanding of the issue is the one arguing, not the one feeding him arguments to use. H7: In the same vein as H6, one can argue using information from sources such as web sites, etc. This does not require an understanding of the topic. It is possible in this way for a debater without understanding of the topic to hold his ground against a debater who has an understanding of the topic. ==================== Cases: ==================== Since it is rather difficult to show that a debater did or did not perceive the significance, explanation, or cause of the debate topic, my hypotheticals will be doing the work for me. I believe that will be enough. Throw away your fears, and take me on!