unfair advantage in debating

"To clarify, I am saying that there is an imbalance in the debate system as the contender has last word these are the words most fresh in the voter (and any readers) mind at the conclusion of reading the debate. " I can't seem to understand your grammar and sentencing structure, but from what I can read, you're saying, that all readers/voters are prone to make up their minds once they read the contender's last word in the last round, you're saying that they tend to skip some arguments and go to the last round, is that right? There are different kinds of voters and readers, it's their choice to decide on who to vote, this has nothing to do with the DDO system. "In addition the instigator cannot respond to what was last said. the instigator may have a very good rebuttal or the contender may have made a mistake or inaccuracy and the instigator is powerless to respond to the contenders statement. This puts the instigator at a disadvantage. "So, understanding your argument, you are implying that the instigator always have the disadvantage as to the contender due to the fact he/she doesn't get the last word and just because he/she doesn't get to say last, he loses. Well, I will say those claims are false and I'll refute those claims by arguing that while both sides in debating have disadvantages, the instigator has advantages. Well, to start, the Instigator is the one who creates the debate, which basically means that the instigator can choose which side they want, weather pro or con. They set the rules, voting time limit, maximum characters, etc. They get to make their FIRST ARGUEMENT, then the contender is obligated to refute them and post a new argument for his/her own (considering the character limits). The Instigators also sets up the debating structure, they are the ones who define the terminology of words and are in charge of semantics, so the debate won't turn into a battle of terms which are useless. As I said, they set the rules meaning they can say what can happen in the last round so no unfair happenings can occur (like new arguments, etc. ). Those are some advantages that can overshadow the shallow argument that the instigator is at the disadvantage. "Now for some numbers and facts, showing the "last word" advantage, I will present some interesting facts figures and observations based on what ddo calls "the top 10 debaters". .. "Ahh, statistics. .. The DDO system lets anyone who register participate in debates, meaning newbies can instigate their own debates. But, some of those newbies make the debate then leave the site and tend to not come back, probably unpatient and not waiting for the opponent or just really forgetting. This is the fault of the instigator, not the system. Also, newbies are prone to make crappy resolutions which can attract experienced debaters to noobsnipe them. And, another reason the instigators lose, is that they forfeit. Example of newbie-instigated debates that end in forfeits: . http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...As an additional source for my argument, I'd like to point, that Ore_Ele, one of the site's most experienced debaters, stated that one of the other reasons of newbie's being sniped are that the "Contenders are more likely to find and exploit semantic arguments to get a technical win. " (As I said, semantic arguments may be useless, but they are fun sometimes). Source: . http://www.debate.org... "Here are some personal experiences, the content of the debate is irrelevant to this debate what is relevant is the points I make regarding them. .. "These arguments are considered to be null and void as the sources are invalid due to the fact there's no such significant sources on the links, therefore, they are irrelevant and baseless. Closing: I'd like to ask my opponent this, if the instigator obviously gets the first word, who gets the last? My opponent complains that the instigator is not treated fairly because he/she does not get the last word, well, if he gets the last then it's unfair to his opponent, the contender. Someone NEEDS and MUST get the last word, and it should be the contender to make them equal. Simple logic, ladies and gentlemen. I will need more arguments from my foe to persuade us that he can contradict that someone is obligated to have the last word in debates, someone needs to speak last. If not, then this is pointless. Also, as a sidenote, I said that I didn't understand some of my opponent's grammar/sentencing structure, and if I missed something, sorry. Nothing further for now.