I am Inexperienced debater

As it seems my opponent probably isn't "faking" any sort of inexperience (this would take a good deal of skill, which as I have said before he most likely lacks), I will instead focus on proving that my opponent does have experience. First, I will re establish that my opponent lacks skill, not experience. He has said that it may be the other way around, that he may lack experience and not skill. But in that case, we would have a stronger win record than he does. From my own experience, an inexperienced but skilled person is still very effective at debate. In general, debate skill comes in the form of being able to provide logical arguments, being aggressive in your argumentation, and disproving your opponent's arguments through logical means. Even without the experience to know the structure of debate, a person who can do these three things can still win. My first debate event ever was in Sophomore year. I had no experience with debate whatsoever, but I won 2nd place in my debate event. I've seen similar events occur with other inexperienced debaters, even when they get placed in debates open to all levels of experience. Thus, once again, my opponent lacks skill, not experience. If he had skill and simply lacked experience, he would provide more logical points. Beyond that, my opponent just proved that he has had plenty of past experience. He has been in at least six debates on this site before this one, meaning he's debated multiple times and has a firm grasp on the proceedings of a debate. He also stated that he is in a debate team and has debated with them, once again showing experience in debating. In defense of my second contention, presenting a proper topic is something that comes from experience, not skill. Skill does not teach you how to structure a topic, because it is a formality learned with experience. Thus, my opponent's rebuttal is invalid. I have not even expanded upon my third contention, yet my opponent has already made an attempt to rebut it. This is called making an "argument block," a way to make an argument invalid before it is even presented. This is another thing learned with experience, not skill, as a skilled debater would still be unsure if he was supposed to block an argument before it was presented. Once again, my opponent is experienced. To expand upon my third contention and rebut his rebuttal, the contention is that my opponent's arguments are presented in an effectively summarized way and are intelligent in design, not that they are logical or good. Simply put, my opponent's arguments may be extremely ineffective in actually proving his point, or may be filled with off-topic points, but they are structures in a way indicative of experience. He does not drone on in a way that bores his readers. Summarization such as this is an effective tool typically employed my seasoned veterans of the debating world. Even I, if you haven't noticed, am very poor at summarizing my points. He structures his arguments also into a few paragraphs, each paragraph representing one major points, rather than going all over the place. Hence, intelligent in design, even if his arguments are full of logical fallacies. A sign of experience, even if the skill is absent. In conclusion, I have effectively proved that my opponent is experienced. First, I proved that my opponent lacks skill, and that is the reason for his poor debating record. Second, I showed that he has initiated many debates with professional, skillfully created resolutions. And third, I've proved that he effectively summarizes his points in an intelligently structured way. All of these are signs of experience, regardless of skill level. They have nothing to do with skill. Before I conclude, I would like to apologize to my opponent for my aggression and possible disrespect. The topic necessitated that I prove him unskilled, and thus my disrespect originated from that. So finally, I have proved that my opponent is an experienced debater. Please vote for the negative.