Quote Debates are actual debates

A) Argumentation can be made in different ways Debates are not solely a matter of Logos but can also include elements of ethos and pathos. So there are multiple ways of making an argument in a debate, not all of them having to do with logic. So therefore quote debates can have the necessary characteristics of a debate, making an argument through pathos (whoever makes the judge laughs the loudest or cry the most wins the debate) thus there are no necessary characteristics lacking in quote debates. Moreover i contend that debates can devolve into a string of assertions and still be considered a debate, for example I could assert right now that quotes are educational. This is a claim but at the same time there is no logical reasoning behind the claim. Even without such a string of logical reasoning i can continue to make a string of assertions in a debate. All a quote debate is, is starting with a presumed argument (my quote is funny) and then post evidence (the quote itself). Thus there is a string of assertions even if those assertions are unwarranted. Finally, the clash is implicit in weighing, the resolution would state something like my quote is superior to yours meaning the only proof necessary is that one quote is superior to another. Quotes have the implicit logic in themselves (for example a quote debate asking which quote is funnier, i dont need to be told why a certain quote is funny, the logic for it is implied in the quote or most likely it would not be funny, the comparison comes in the magnitude). Such magnitude comparisons are legitimate in debate. Another example, if we were debating on national sovereignty vs. proliferation treaties, the debater in favor of the proliferation treaties might say the end result of the national sovereignty is a nuclear winter while the other side claims the impact of national sovereignty violations may lead to genocide. Legitimately this would be a debate as impacts are present in the round as is necessary for a weighing resolution even though the impacts are never weighed against each other. Therefore, to sum things up, since 1. Quotes make arguments through Ethos 2. Quotes implicitly create impacts that tie back to the resolution 3. Magnitude comparison is not necessary for something to be considered a debate quote debates are legitimate B) Rebuttals are implied and contradictions are not necessary. First i would argue that the rebuttal is implied in that each quote creates an impact as stated above which functions comparatively in a debate. Insofar as in a debate one can grant the opponent that one of their points is true while still winning by proving that their own point is also true and more important, the rebuttal comes in with whose quote is funnier. Thus there is a rebuttal when someone posts another quote. Contradictions are not necessary in a debate 1. Look at my argument or even your own argument for contradictions, i did not see any in your argument and you did not see any in my argument. This means that just by looking at your own case and my own case we can see that there are no inherent flaws in a debate. (and oh by the way claiming this argument makes your own a contradiction would be false in that it just links into your own case, as a paradox, it does not necessarily contradict) 2. I can put in place a one sentence argument that does not have a flaw in it that applies and does not contradict. 3. Note the wording of my opponent, "regular debate", "often", and "can also", mean he is defining debate by general practice and not what is. The wording of the case shows that other LEGITIMATE forms of debate allow for these contingencies to be untrue, debate does not necessitate that any of these be in the debate itself. He is not providing for the scope of ALL debates. I now stand ready for my opponents speech and urge all the voters to vote for me.