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

As my final round I will be spending time covering each of my opponents points and then offering a brief summary. My opponent begins his round attempting to dispel the logic behind my squirrel analogy. He frequently attempts to use red herring arguments in order to distract the voters from the real issue here; arguments such as this, "Certainty is a state which lacks doubt whereas possibility is a state that accepts and maintains doubt." However my opponent neglects my arguments from my last speech stating quite clearly that possibility and certainty are not mutually exclusive. The fact that I'm not sure which squirrel is larger does not mean one squirrel is not larger until I prove it to be. The fact that one squirrel is larger exists even if I am not sure which is. The same is true of our debate now, the fact that my opponent thinks that there is a possibility does not detract from the fact that one of us is indeed the better debater. Re Re Spreading: My opponent states that my claims somehow fuel his case, this is simply not true. He back up his claim with the idea that arguments are developed in a very short period of time, which is not true. If anyone voting has seen a policy debate card (evidence) it looks something like: MY OPPONENT IS A BETTER DEBATER - Yraelz '08 [Citation here] Content here. A. All a policy debater has to do is read the tag, this is there argument. At which point they continue the debate by flying through the card as quickly as possible. My opponent also makes the claim that the debater in D has to become very good in order to respond to everything however this is also not true. That debater responds to what he can without crying and then the negative speaker stands up and points out everything he dropped. At which point the final affirmative speaker needs to pull a large amount of B.S out and sound very charming in order to win the judges (this does not happen often!). LD on the other hand has beautiful sounding speakers that debate about moral issues and make sound points all of the time. B. My opponent states that this kind of strategy can happen during any form of debate. However this argument is misleading as it is the fact that this form of debate is inherent in CX debate that makes it worse than LD. Re Re Research: The con in attempting to disprove my research point actually strengthens my others points. He quite clearly states, "All that is really required is some prior high school level understanding of logic and philosophy." He goes on to state that many LDer's simply steal their cases from online but the same can be seen true of Policy debaters. In fact, all policy debaters have to do is run 20 or so cards together in a way that sounds nice, LDers have to actually write a case. Re Re LD having a large emphasis on research: My opponent attempts to prove this misleading in two ways. 1. He states that facts do not have the same importance as they do in Policy debate but this cannot be true as policy debate has no foundation in fact. Policy debate relies on cards that can be cut from any source. Thus every debater in policy debate will carry a card that says AMERICAN ECONOMY IS GOING DOWN THE TUBES, and at the same time carry a card saying AMERICAN ECONOMY IS STRONG. This allows Policy debaters to make an argument on any issue that comes up with absolutely 0 reliance on fact. 2. My opponent states that CX debate is more difficult to research because I need up to date evidence all year long, but this statement is clearly fallacious as my opponent has completely disregarded my Google news argument. In policy debate all one must do is put tabs on Google news and they will send the debater the latest up to date info on each subject. At the very least an LDer is going to have to change his tabs from month to month. My opponent then goes on to point out this supposed contradiction in my case. He argues that at one point through my speeches I am advocating that LD depends on reasoning and then at another point arguing that it depends on research more than policy. This is a fine example of the false dilemma fallacy as these two options are not actually mutually exclusive at all. LD is in fact rather capable of relying on both reasoning coupled with research. The con then finishes this section by arguing that the fact that he has stopped using slimy tactics on debate.org is of little importance. This is false, it is of massive importance when I still use these slimy tactics on debate.org and he does not. It effectively makes me the worse debater. Re Pro uses deception: 1. My opponent states that deceptive tactics would be almost impossible in CX because of lack of lay judges. LD on the other hand is apparently chalk full of lay judges. The first part of this is proven quickly untrue by the fact that CX and LD events are held at the same tournament. It is further proved untrue by the fact I live in Montana, where lay judges dwell in mass. The only tournament I ever had experienced judges at was Gonzaga. So yes, perhaps my opponents even had many lay judges but at the same time so did mine. Voters need to look to the fact that my opponent also competes in mock trial now, where the judges are no longer lay judges. So in essence my opponent has had less chance to use his deceptive tactics than I have. 2. The con states that perhaps I am using my deceptive tactics now. This line of thought is pointless as there is obviously no way to prove it true. Re Re Experience: My opponent attempts to discredit my claims. 1. He states that he has not done more debates because many of his debates have simply been forfeit. However I have two points. a. The same is true in my case, my opponent does not somehow attract troll debaters. Everyone on this site eventually hits one. Example: http://www.debate.org... b. I have nearly lost debates in which my opponent forfeited, this makes me a worse debater. http://www.debate.org... 2. My opponent tries to prove that the fact that he has done more tournaments is of no consequence because Policy debate is harder. Please see all my above points on policy debate for proof. Finally the Con attempts to argue against my point stating that knowing every factor is not necessary. For this I once again gave the squirrel analogy in which I pointed out that knowing factors that effected the squirrels color (genetic composition, diseases that may have crippled the squirrel etc...) are not actually necessary to determine the squirrels color. In fact to tell that the squirrel is primarily brown we simply need to be able to see that 50%+ is brown. My opponent argues against this by stating that knowing most of the factors or all of them is necessary. This is obviously not true for 2 reasons. a. Providing that one factor is of far greater importance than the others then it may need to be the only factor measured. In this debate we've measured a couple factors of great importance. b. I offered my opponent to bring other factors into the round that I had somehow missed. The fact that he could not supply any is evidence of the fact that he agrees that the factors in round right now are the most important and major ones. I would like to point out that if my opponent decides to bring these factors into his final round they should be disqualified as I would have no chance to respond. Re re Major factors: I offered my opponent to bring these into the round, he did not such thing. Right now the factors in the round are the major factors. Closing note: If the voters feel that my opponent has done better or at least equal debating as me they may vote for me. =)