Debate is a Broken form of Argumentation

== Note to Voters ==As agreed by both the debaters in comments before R4, we reduced the debate to 4 rounds. Kindly consider this as the final round for the purpose of casting your valuable vote. == Rebuttals ==I modified tags to aid clarity. However, I kept the structure of the debate largely intact. I also clubbed together highly recursive arguments posted by Pro. I am sure readers will be able to see that I addressed each point raised till now. Debating within limits is skill: Pro conceded that debating within limits is key part of 'debating skills'. Pro further admits that debate is a inherently fair as a contest. Apart from arguments there are several ingredients of debating skill. Organizing arguments into a compelling narration Elucidation and clarity in verbal debate Formatting to ease readability in a written debate Debating within debate limits This does not mean arguments are not important for debates. As long as the debaters are well matched in terms of debating skills, the result is decided by the arguments only. The debaters in our discussion are well matched as that was one of the starting assumptions. Debate is a fair contest, which is ultimately decided by arguments. Debate is definitely not broken on terms of argumentation. Abusive AID: Pro admits that my method of dealing with increases abusive AID, is correct in terms of competitiveness. However he fails to understand that it increases argument quality also, as it forces the sides to do proper judgement to the key points. Just because you cannot use every arguement in every case does not mean debate is broken in terms of argumentation. Undue advantage: Here also Pro talks about fairness. In the only example presented by Pro, we have seen that CiRrk who was under severe inflationary pressure while debating my opponent, managed to argue within words limit. The debate was finally judged on the basis of arguments quality, and he won comfortably. Pro accuses I am involving judges. But judges are always involved! It is rare that debaters reach conclusion on theie own. SID: Pro misunderstood my argument and dropped it by claiming a red herring. A hook shot is a technique which can be used by batsmen only when the opponent (bowler) uses a particular aggressive technique. Similarly certain combinations of argument cannot be used in a particular situation or in a particular way. Cricket is not broken in terms of shots - even though you cannot play any shot any time. Similarly debate is also not broken just because certain arguments become unfeasable. AID: Failure to anticipate: I said, AID can be intercepted in most cases. My opponent also dropped the example in which the instigator has successfully intercepted AID. I did not say that AID can be intercepted in all cases. I explained how debaters can address AID if they failed to intercept it. Limits argument: I have already explained why argument selection does not lead to debate being broken. AID within single argument: If you are up against a limit, and you have a single argument and you can always rephrase your arguments. It is question of skill, not arguments. Small AID pushing debate over limits: I had given example of CiRrk's argument, as to how he managed comfortably avoid inflation while winning the debate in the process. Pro dropped it completely. Difficulty Proving AID: There is no such thing as 'unclear AID'. If AID is not clear, it is the task of debater to limit the arguments. If he appeals in such cases, he will end up losing. Meta Arguments Series: Pro acknowledges his arguments were recursive. I combined meta arguments and meta-meta arguments together. Since unclear AID do not exist, my arguments stand extended. It was way to clear from begining that this debate is symmetrical in burden. If a debater inflates his own arguments, as my opponent demonstrated he could have done, he would lose. That proves nothing. My opponent dropped the paradoxical nature of his arguments. In unsymmetrical AID, the offender is tasked with reducing his arguments. He is still free to choose his arguments. It does not break the debate. The victim does not have to debate AID. He just has to point it out. Clear AID is by definition clear. == Conclusion ==My opponent conceded that debate is a fair contest. He also admitted that limits are needed in the debate. I have shown that debates are still largly decided by arguments. That is a sufficient to negate the resolution. While future of humanity is important, his argument about nukes is still irrelevent to this debate. He also admits it consists of empty speculation. I don't have to address this. Discerning voters will note that he had introduced this argument as an example of linguistic inflation appended to debate. Unfortunately for him, his nuke arguments went bust, again demonstrating it is possible to manage inflation. I would like to thank Sieben for this engrossing debate. This debate itself is a small testimony to the fact that debate is not a broken form of argumentation. This is one of the many reasons why voters should.