policy debate is better than ld

Alas, what you see here today ladies and gentlemen is my opponent's last futile attempt to get back into this debate. He is trying to focus the debate on four issues and disregard the rest that he chose not to address. I will not allow that. The following points are points that my opponent dropped and function as offense in favor of LD over Policy:1. He never responded to my point that in a seriously competitive activity, the easier it is for them to get started and sucked in, the better. This is strengthened by the fact that my opponent conceded that LD is easier to get into compared to Policy.2. He never responded to my point that the harder something is to get into, the more likely it will deter people for trying to get started, which turns his entire point about beginners.3. He never responded to my point that the playing field for everyone is always going to be equal among beginners so ease of starting is better.4. He never responded to the fact that LD uses as much policy-styled arguments as policy does, yet policy doesn't use any LD styled arguments or cases (while LD has kritiks, plans, counterplans, theory, topicality, disads, etc. , policy doesn't use the Value-criterion format that is traditional to LD). 5. He never responded to my point that the rules and guidelines in LD are just as open for discussion and modification as they are in Policy.6. He never responded to my point that LD is growing and has a lot more room to grow, compared to Policy that has no more room to grow and is slowly dying out and being replaced by Public Forum.7. He never responds to the fact that LD provides more education for everyone, including the judges, as compared to Policy.8. He never responded to my point that LD debaters have a higher ability to adapt to different judges compared to policy.9. He never responded to my point that spreading decreases the overall education level of everyone.10. He never responded to the fact that LD can function without spreading on the varsity level, whereas spreading is basically mandatory for policy on the varsity level, meaning he bites into the harms of less education. He's trying to get out of the harms by saying that both events have spreading on the varsity level, but one can also be successful not spreading on the varsity level, when compared to policy this isn't the case, which means more judge adaptation and better education.11. He never responds to my point that there are more different types of arguments and case ideas that are ran in LD than in Policy. His idea that policy runs more philosophy than LD runs economics is false, as LD runs the same amount of economics and far more philosophy. 12. He never responded to my point that the shorter resolution times give much more education because of the increased research load. 13. He never responded to my point that shorter speech times allow for better education than longer speech times. So what this means is that even if you're buying all of the analysis that my opponent brought up new in the final round (and you shouldn't take pity on him for the two forfeited rounds, instead you should hold that against him), the vast amount of points he dropped directly disproves and outweighs those points. But let's address his specific arguments from the final round. My opponent tries to get out of the spreading argument by quoting my second layered argument, but fails to address the first argument I made that functions before the argument he quoted does. Insofar as he dropped that spreading is harmful for education, and that LD can function without spreading on the varsity level, then he is biting into the harms on a far more drastic scale than I am. This means I'm winning on spreading, while my opponent is trying to brush it under the rug. Don't. Evaluate it as I've been extending it as offense throughout the entire debate. My opponent claims for the beginner's arguments that they should perservere from the start. The problem with that is that beginning in policy is too hard for a beginner to just hop right into and perservere, as the difficulty discourages many from trying and turns them away from debate in general. That is why Policy is dying out and why Public Forum is becoming more popular. Since he dropped all of those points, plus the points I raised about beginners being more adaptable and more receptive to continue with something that is easier to start and just as challenging over the long run as policy, I'm winning this point. My opponent then tries to claim as far as diversity goes that it's common knowledge that policy has less customs and rules than LD. This is drastically false, and the fact that he dropped my argument that claimed so further strengthens my arguments and weaken his. Moreover, he never responded to my points about how LD uses far more types of arguments and cases than policy does, which drastically increases diversity and education. This means that I'm also winning this point. As for the final point about education, this is where my opponent does the worst job explaining why he's winning it. He just makes assertions that policy does better without responding to the arguments of mine that he dropped which contradict his assertions and point out that his arguments are assertions. I've already explained how longer speech times hurt education, and he dropped it. I already explained how spreading hurts education, and he dropped it. I've already explained how LD is much more flexible and can adapt to any style of debate as compared to how Policy is essentially a one stringed instrument with just different variations of the same idea, which harms education. Compare that with the countless other arguments of mine that he dropped that create more education for LD and harm education for policy, and you'll see that I'm clearly and definitively winning this point. So, at the end of the day, this debate breaks down really simply:1. My opponent is dropping way too many arguments of mine to consider being able to win this2. He's not doing a good enough job responding to the arguments he didn't drop.3. I'm making clear offensive turns and defensive blocks to my opponent's arguments, meaning he has zero offense in this debate.4. I've extended countless arguments of mine that were either dropped by my opponent or sufficiently defended by myself as offense for the con side.