I am Inexperienced debater

Hello everyone, my name is Public_Agenda. I would like to start by thanking my opponent for offering this interesting debate that is sure to provide a welcome relief from the strict and intense debates normally offered on this site. He has brought up the most interesting topic, "I am Inexperienced debater," which I take to mean, "Resolved: I am an inexperienced debater." As the con, it is my duty to prove this resolution false, and thus to prove that he is not an inexperienced debater. I do not, however, have to prove that he is experienced. Just simply that he is not inexperienced. Which means if he falls into that gray area somewhere between experienced and inexperienced, I still win. I accept the burden of proof for this debate. To begin, I would like to define two terms for the sake of this debate. Inexperienced – Lacking in sufficient experience to consider oneself at an upper level of proficiency in a particular event or set of knowledge. Debater – A person involved in a formal system or argumentation that uses knowledge, logic, and evidence to disprove the claim of another while proving his or her own claim. If you cross-apply these definitions to one another, you come to the conclusion that my opponent is trying to prove that he lacks the experience necessary to be proficient in formal argumentation. I will be arguing that he has the experience necessary to be proficient in formal argumentation, but rather simply lacks the skill. I will be proving this through the following contentions: 1)Lacking experience is different from lacking skill. 2)My opponent has initiated many debates with professional, skillfully created resolutions. 3)My opponent's typical arguments in a debate are short, but effectively summarize his points and are intelligent in design. 4)My opponent could easily be faking his inexperience for the sake of this debate. I will be proving the first two contentions in this round, and the last two in the next round as well as strengthening my first two. I will rebut if necessary, but I doubt I will need to as my opponent will probably not provide any counterarguments, because if he does he proves his own resolution negative. A strong rebuttal is a sign of an experienced debater, after all. Contention #1: Lacking experience is different from lacking skill. The definition I set forth for inexperienced is "lacking sufficient experience to consider oneself at an upper level of proficiency," which would suggest that inexperience in debate is defined by lacking proficiency in debate. However, this is not true. My definition simply says that one is inexperienced when he does not have the experience to be proficient. This does not mean that having this experience would make my opponent a good debater, though. Experience is not the only thing required to be a good debater. Skill is also required. And although skill can be acquired through experience, not every experienced person gains skill. Therefore, my opponent could be quite experienced but still be a poor debater. So do not be misled by his losing streak; this does not mean he is inexperienced. It just means he currently lacks skill, which doesn't always correlate to experience. Contention #2: My opponent has initiated many debates with professional, skillfully created resolutions. A resolution is the topic of a debate. For example, as con I am trying to disprove the resolution of this debate, which is that the Pro side is an inexperienced debater. My opponent has been involved in 6 debates before this one (which in itself shows he has had plenty of opportunities to gain experience). He initiated 5 of those debates himself. It is much harder to start your own debate than it is to take someone else's, as you must think of a good, creative topic and then write the introduction. My opponent has done this 5 times, and done a rather successful job of it each time. The topics of all 5 debates he started, with the exception of one, were detailed and gave a complete idea of what the debate would involve. There is no question as to how the debate should proceed, nor is there confusion in the wording. The topics also create a clear Pro side and a clear Con side, allowing for good, fun, successful debate. These are integral parts of good debate, and are skills experienced debaters almost always learn during the course of their experience. Here are two examples of his topics: 1)Marijuana should not be legalized. While simple, this debate has a clear pro and con side. Pro will be arguing that marijuana should not be legalized, and con will argue that it should be legalized. The argument also facilitates a necessity by both sides to research and present facts, as the argument spans multiple dimensions, encompassing economy, society, politics, philosophy, and morality. All of this set in a situation where the debater may use up to 8,000 characters per round over 3 rounds creates a deep and complex debate, all from a simple topic created from the mind of an obviously experienced debater. The other example is: 2)The Russian PPSH-41 was a more effective weapon than the American Thompson sub machine gun. This is obviously a very well thought out topic that provides each person with a predefined standpoint. Both debaters would have to be very well researched to argue this point, and this debate can also span multiple dimensions. One gun can be more effective in multiple things, including accuracy, firepower, reload time, costs, production time, weight, and more. Thus, the debate takes on an element of which gun gives greater benefit in comparison to the costs. Once again, a good topic from an experienced debater. And all of this has come from THE_OPINIONATOR. In conclusion for this round, I would like to ask you to review the logic in my arguments and thing of how much you know I'm right, and how I'm obviously fighting a Straw man argument where I'm bound to lose, so you should vote for me just to defy that! So, stay tuned for the amazingness of round 2! :D