Debate is not the surest way to win over your opponent.... .

The conclusion will be as simple as possible. PART 1: 1) My opponent still support that ASSURED = SUREST. Yes the meaning is good but the form is not good.The University of Cambridge refuses it if the forms do not match according to comparison. To quote contender:"Most assured may make complete sense; however, it overemphasizes the true value of what the word "surest" upholds and therefore is not suitable for this debate." 2)If you agree with qualifying yourself as an 'opponent' here, then, why did debate.org brand you as a contender?. 3)"but also requires rebuttals and evidence to defend or attack ones/the opponent"s contentions."=> I consider debates more of explanations than a series of attacks. 4)" How can it ever be possible for an argument, in another form other than debate, to reach into more depth than that of debate."=>You are supporting the fact that there are other 'arguments' other than debates. Kindness is another argument. To quote myself in an earlier point: "When confronted to opposing views, one way is to directly to confront the argument and the other way is to win over the person by your kindness. Which do you think produced the desired effect?." 5)" If to win over really means to be victorious in an argument and convince like my opponent and I agree"=>I agree that kindness is also an argument, not only debate. 6)"debate has ought to be the surest method because it exposes the vulnerabilities and strengths in ones argument, enabling the judge to differentiate between what is right and what is wrong."=>Are you negating the fact that debates can be carried out exclusively by two persons?. 7)"Debate is not only to argue, but also to master the art of convincing;=> If you have mastered the art of debate, have you mastered every arts of convincing? PART 2: 1)i requote myself:"Yes, it is very ironical but, it is the symptom of "cutting a tree and write 'don't waste paper' on it"." I am not negating the effects of debate. Secondly if i consider cutting trees wrong, does it means that i cannot use paper to say that? 2)"My opponent clearly instigated this topic because he/she firmly wanted to argue the fact that debating is not a beneficial and efficient method to argue a problem; however, ironically, he/she does exactly what his resolution disagrees with: using methods of debate to convince an opponent on a topic. Therefore, as stated by the law of paradox, irony and contradiction, my opponent clearly agrees that debate is an assured method to win over your opponent. "==>On the other hands, if at the end i am not convinced of what the contender says, it might also show that debate is not the surest way. Another way , less of hostility may be..... _______________________________________________________________________________ THE START: If debates was surely the way to convince contenders then let us analyse something. 1. The Christian missionaries: Is it through debates and logic that they convert? Or less logic and more love and kindness? 2. Ahmed Deedat, Zakir Naik and the like: What is the outcome? 3. After every debate, does someone accept the other views? Convincing people does not go entirely on logic. Some people are blind to facts. Some more kindness does the job.And that is the final word. I congratulate you on your patience.