Online debates are better than real life debates

Due to my mistake in setting up this round, this will be a summary and final focus mashed up into one. At the end of today's round, both of our arguments have come down to two areas: what benefits physical debates bring and what benefits online debates bring. The first main issue is the benefits of physical debating. There are two points within this issue. In his rebuttal, my opponent once again brings up the small little skills that he says are trained by physical debates. However, he has failed to refute my point about how these little skills do not make physical debates better than online debates. Improving these small skills does not outweigh the benefits that people gain from online debates. As we have stated in our first speech, online debates improve analysis skills far better than physical debates, while allowing far better practice with many more kinds of people. My opponent has failed to refute this point, and this is a reason why the affirmative should win. The second point is about the disadvantages of physical debates. In my opponent's speech, he does not refute the fact that physical debates are simply not worth the time it takes to set up. My opponent attempts to refute this by vaguely stating that physical interaction makes everything worth it. Since my opponent does not refute either of these points, we win on this issue The second area of this debate is the benefits of online debates. The first main point in this issue is the quantity of practice that is given by debate. In his rebuttal my opponent claims that physical debates do not take a long time to set up. However, he has failed to refute the main point of my argument, which is that since online debates allow for greater flexibility and fewer restrictions, online debates are better. While practice rounds to take less time to set up than rounds at a tournament, my opponent has not proved why these practice rounds are better than an online debate. Also, even though my opponent states that practice rounds would only take an hour or so to set up, he has failed to refute my main point. In the same amount of time, more online debates could have taken place. The second point is the quality of practice given by online debate. Online debates improve analysis above all else; all these small skills that my opponent brings up are like saying that writing is good because it works out your wrist. Throughout this round, my opponent has failed to refute the point that online debates allow practice against people from all around the country, rather than in one localized area. Online debates would allow debates against every single debating style in the country, as well as access to the best debaters around. However, my opponent fails to realize that even if practice debates take little time to set up, they would be against the same people over and over again. Looking to Leland High school as an example, if practice debates were to be set up, everyone would run the exact same contentions, while facing the exact same rebuttals. The only way to face different styles of debating would be in a tournament, and my opponent has actually agreed with me that tournaments are not worth the time it takes to set up. At the end of the round, my partner and I have refuted our opponent's rebuttal, so our case still works. However, my opponent has still failed to prove why the small little benefits he brings up make physical debates better than online debates. Therefore, since online debates provide better practice than physical debates, we urge an affirmative ballot.