My opponent is a better or at the very least equal debater with all factors combined.

The PRO begins by criticizing my advocacy which urged possibility, but his rendering of it is extremely erroneous. Certainty is a state which lacks doubt whereas possibility is a state that accepts and maintains doubt. For instance, let us observe his analogy in detail. If he were to observe two squirrels and claim that the squirrel of his choice MIGHT be bigger than the other, it would be the same as claiming that the squirrel of his choice MIGHT be smaller than the other. If he were to then use an empirical means of comparing the squirrels, he could disprove the doubt assured from his earlier stance concerning possibility. The main point to note here is that by performing an empirical test and determining which squirrel is objectively larger, he is conflicting with his statement of possibility by dispelling the very essence of possibility. The PRO states that the reason I am giving evidence is to suggest that he is likely the better debater, but this is straw man. As I've insinuated in the previous round, I'm merely providing evidence to show thdat it's possible (hence my stance). Re Spreading: The PRO attempts to discredit my point that concerns spreading by suggesting that it is merely of means of keeping your opponent from responding to all arguments. He even posts the CX debate format, but the only thing he manages to accomplish here is to provide fuel for my argument. With the exception of the constructive portions of policy speeches, everything else is extemporaneous; the arguments (which are being dictated at extremely high speeds) are developed in very little time. As for the AFF speaker in D, this actually helps increase debate skills; the AFF speaker is forced to refute arguments as concisely as possible or make strategic concessions without necessarily weakening the AFF case by any real margin. In response to the PRO's 2 observations on the format: Re: A) False. See Above. Re: B) This is false too. Believe or not, one can actually do this in any debate format. In fact, this is very much encouraged in debate. If your opponent cannot respond to all of your arguments, it is your opponent's fault. As I've implied above, having to put up with lengthy rebuttal/constructive speeches in a short amount of time forces a debate to quickly make his/her points as concise as possible. This in turns increases the efficiency of such a speaker's arguments. Re Research: In LD, time consuming research isn't even necessary. I know this because many high ranking LD debaters commit to the habit of creating their cases at the last minute (whether it is the night before the tournament or on the way to the tournament). Many LD debaters simply steal their cases online. All that is really required is some prior high school level understanding of logic and philosophy. The only place one will find a modicum of results from research is within the constructive speeches. Re: LD having a large emphasis on research: This is misleading for two reasons. 1)Because the main emphasis of the sport revolves around values and criterions, the actual FACTS on the issues are not to be upheld with the same level of importance. It is exactly the opposite when it comes to Policy. 2)Researching the entire year makes things more difficult as you'll always have to produce up-to-date info, so re-researching is a definite requirement in Policy. As for merely cutting cards and reading them as quickly as possible, a true CX debate judge will not vote based on this; the role of a judge is determine which team performed the best in the debate. Also, having to refute your opponents objections to these cards require that you have excessive knowledge of topic. Policy combines reasoning and research whereas LD mostly relies on reasoning. As for the PRO's offense on this subject, it is merely a repeat of what he stated above. However, I cannot help but notice a contradiction in the PRO's argument. The PRO agrees with me on the matter that LD's primary focus is on reasoning alone. However, afterwards, he is advocating that LD has more of an emphasis on research than CX debate does. Clearly, the PRO contradicts himself. The PRO states that my argument about "not arguing reasonably" is irrelevant. He supports this idea with the premise that I am reformed merely because I stated that I do not do this on debate.org, but this is no more than an assumption. I refrain from using deceptive tactics here solely because I feel I have nothing to gain by using them. If I am competing for a scholarship or the notoriety that comes from doing well in real world debate tournaments, I will do whatever it takes to win. The PRO relying on deception: 1) If you recall, the PRO clearly insinuated that there was no emphasis on reasoning within CX debate; he insinuated that it was mostly about listing as many cards as possible. According to that rendering of CX debate, it is very much unlikely that he could have employed the kind of tactics he is referring to. Not only that, but CX debate judges need a set amount of skills due to the nature of the sport, so it's highly unlikely that he ever ran into any layman. On the other hand, LD tournaments are known for sometimes relying on layman judges. 2) When resorting to deceptive tactics in attempt to win, you must break the rules without getting caught. Here, the PRO states that he uses deceptive tactics on this website. Naturally, a question arises: How do we know he isn't using such deceptive tactics now? If I am truly the inferior debater, it would be his job to hide that truth at all cost. Besides, there's no doubt that many of the voters on this website are laymen, being all the more reason for him to employ such tricks. Re experience: The PRO's experience argument is dismissible for: 1) The PRO stated that I had done more debates here than he had. If you'll notice, many of my opponents have forfeited their rounds or have come to this website merely to troll. Debate.org experience shouldn't count for much due to how most of the audience votes on factors besides the actual arguments. 2) He states that he has done 5 official high school tournaments, but make sure to note what I stated when I had answered the question on that matter. To tell you the truth, I've only done 4 official LD debate tournaments, as I've spent more time on speech rather than debate. If you include High School Mock trial, that merely boils down to one more tournament than the PRO. However, think about that for a moment. As I've shown, CX debate requires far more work than what I've participated in. Basically, the PRO is saying that I had a harder time mowing a 200 square ft. field with a driving lawn mower than he did mowing a 180 square ft. field with a pushing lawn mower (during a heat wave). Finally, the PRO suggests that it is not necessary to know all the factors, but this is false. As he has acknowledged with "using deceptive tactics", there are factors which can DETRACT one's actual debate skills. If all the factors merely added or did nothing to effect one's debate skills, the PRO would be correct, but this is clearly not the case. Since there are factors which can detract from one's skills, knowing "most" or "all" of these factors is necessary. The PRO then attempts to support his argument with his squirrel analogy, but this is the "false analogy" fallacy at work. When measuring the size of a squirrel, one merely needs to verify one thing to determine which squirrel is larger. However, one can't merely measure one factor to determine who has the better ability to debate as other factors can always be used to show otherwise. Re Major Factors: What's considered "major" and what's considered "minor" on this matter mostly revolves around personal interpretation. The PRO is free to try and show otherwise. However, I assure you that anything he states in attempt to disprove this will fuel my case. Your move! =D