Violin is one of the hardest instruments to master.

I would like to begin by reiterating the resolution and preposition. “Violin is one of the hardest instruments to master” My opponent says that he must only uphold that the violin is a relatively difficult instrument to master. This is absolutely wrong. Preposition -“Violin is one of the hardest instruments to master” My opponent must uphold that the violin is one of the HARDEST instruments to master. If my opponent had to show that the violin was only hard, the preposition would be: “Violin is a hard instrument to follow”. Alas, this is not the preposition, so all of my opponent’s arguments are null and therefore my opponent has not fulfilled the BOP because once again, my arguments and rebuttals are valid. My opponent has lied in this debate, in which he says the following: “But my opponent previously confirmed that blowing a bassoon is equally if not less difficult” This is an absolute lie. I have said no such thing, and I never will. My opponent has intentionally made a false statement towards the favour of him. My opponent then asserts that playing the bassoon requires no “tonal requirement” of the ears. Once again, this is false. Pressing down certain keys will only produce a rough approximation of a note; it is the perfection of certain wind flow pressures produced by the diaphragm. This is where trial-and-error needs to be improved. My opponent is once again wrong. The higher the pressure, the higher the pitch produced. Looking back at my opponent’s R1 argument, my opponent states that the violin bow is held up by the pinkie (please refer to this); my opponent does not mention the three main fingers and thumb in this argument. This would suggest to a reader or anyone that my opponent is saying that the violin bow, is only held by the pinkie- and nothing more. My opponent’s argument was false from the beginning despite his attempts to deny this. “My opponent then proceeds to refute some of my arguments”. My opponent has admitted that I have refuted some of his arguments. I am amazed at the audacity of my opponent! He has lied and used an ad hominem against me in order to undermine me and my argument. This is worse that semantics. My opponent has said that because I have less experience in playing the violin than him, he understands my “deficiencies in understanding the technical dexterity that the violin demands ant a higher calibre.” This is a personal attack towards me (once again false), and I am insulted by opponents actions. My opponent does not know me at all, so he has no jurisdiction or knowledge of my skills/ capabilities in violin playing. To conclude: My opponent has not fulfilled the BOP; he has not shown that the violin is one of the hardest instruments to master. I have negated his points despite what he has tried to deny. My opponent has misinterpreted the preposition, in which he said that he only had to show that the violin is hard to master. He is absolutely wrong. My opponent has lied in this debate in favour of himself in which he claims that I conceded to certain points, but in fact that I did not at all. My opponent has not presented any viable sources, if not any sources at all; whereas, I have shown my sources. I have successfully rebutted his points. He has said that I have misinterpreted this debate (this was then proven to be wrong). Many of his arguments such as the “bow” one, was negated, in which this was also a false statement. My opponent has used an Ad Hominem against me in favour of him and to also undermine me and my argument. This is not tolerated and is worse than using semantics (this is ironic because my opponent had asked for no semantics). My sources used for this and my previous round: http://liutaiomottola.com... http://koppreeds.com... https://uk.answers.yahoo.com... http://www.abrsm.org... https://uk.answers.yahoo.com... I ask the floor to side with me. Vote Con! s://californiaac.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" />