On Debate.org debates, there is, on balance, a net Contender advantage.

I will support my position from two fronts: general trends and specific examples. I. General TrendsOf the many thousands of debates on Debate. org, 13,285 have not ended in a draw. Of those, the Instigator has won 4,578 of them and the Contender has won 8,680 of them. In performing a statistical test, our null hypothesis would be that the Instigator would win 0.5 times per debate. However, when a one-sided one-proportion z-test is performed on this data, one gets a z-value of -35.823, which means that the probability that this imbalance is due to random chance alone is 0. I will acknowledge, however, that not all of the assumptions for a one-proportion z-test are met, although in this case I see no reason for the statistical conclusion to be any less valid. The only significant flaw here is that while it is proven that the Contender wins significantly more often than the Instigator, because Debate. org is not a controlled experiment, it is conceivable that the characteristics of frequent Instigators and frequent Contenders are significantly different. Therefore, specific debates will be necessary to affirm the resolution, as shown in the next point. II. Specific Examplesa. Simple FalsehoodsOften enough, the Contender makes a claim that, while apparently true, can be easily refuted by the Instigator if he were given a chance to refute. This allows the Contender to make some claims that the Instigator may not challenge; the Instigator has no such opportunity. Therefore, the Contender has an advantage in the debate. Examples:Debate 1: . http://www.debate.org...The claim: "Plus, there are exceptions to everything. An example is that fireworks are illegal in the state of NY, but on the 4th of July, there is a special fireworks display (and fireworks can be dangerous. .. and yes, they do this on public property) completely within legal parameters. "The Contender tried to use an exception to the illegal status of fireworks in New York to claim that flag burning itself should not be illegal. At first glance, this makes sense, but the Instigator never got the chance to point out that just because there is an exception to a law does not mean, in the Contender's own wording, that the action is no longer illegal, making the entire point moot. Debate 2: . http://www.debate.org...The claim: "Once again, Con is trying to manipulate definitions -- he notes that Dictionary. com's definition of omnipotent is regarded as very great power, when in fact I have pointed out in R1 that Dictionary. com's definition reads having very great or UNLIMITED (a. k. a. ALL) authority or power. This is not debatable -- a quick look at the source will reveal which one of us is being truthful and which one of us is omitting relevant information to further their position. My definition is correct, stands, and is solely instrumental in negating the resolution even without considering my other arguments. "This claim also seems to make sense in the context of the debate, until one realizes that the definition reads "great OR unlimited" instead of "great AND unlimited. " The Contender's entire case rested on the idea that God's omnipotence was necessarily unlimited power, so an alternative definition of omnipotence that did not involve unlimited ability, as presented in the "or" clause, would refute her completely. The Contender naturally neglected to point out this crippling difference, skipping over it as if it were insignificant, and the Instigator never had the opportunity. The Contender was therefore able to win the debate with a flat-out incorrect argument, but none of the voters got to know that. b. New ArgumentsOften, the Contender is able to make a new argument in the final round of the debate that ought to have been introduced and easily could have been introduced much earlier in the debate. This gives the Instigator no opportunity to refute at all, even if the argument is objectionable. This is especially egregious if the argument is itself a turn used to turn an argument made by the Instigator rounds before against the Instigator, seemingly ruining the Instigator without ever standing up to criticism. Examples:Debate 1: . http://www.debate.org...The claim: "He says that the cheaper system is the better system, and I have proven that the 360 is actually LESS expensive than the Wii. "The Contender made this argument in the very last round of the debate; the Instigator had been pushing the price point since the very first round of the debate. Had the Contender been the Instigator instead, she would either have to give the original Instigator a chance for refutation or not make the point at all. c. Trailing ArgumentSometimes, the back-and-forth on a debate is so intense that both debaters continually try to one-up each other's responses in an attempt to disprove the other. In such an event, the point is often completely unresolved by the end of the debate. As such, in the last round, the Instigator refutes the Contender's penultimate point, but the Contender may refute the Instigator's final point, with his own point left unchallenged whether it is right or wrong. Examples:Debate 1: . http://www.debate.org...The claim: "I think my opponent is just wrong about the cards effects. He argues that chain energy did not do the effect that the card said it should. I definitely think it did, the card drained 500 life points and then by binding them with a ring. Moments later, after the ring drains the point, they are let go and they show up in time for Dark Bakura to summon some more monsters. "This claim was regarding the effect of a Duel Monsters card in a Yu-Gi-Oh! episode. The Contender claimed that the card may have drained life points; however, any Yu-Gi-Oh! fan would be able to point out that the victims of the card were not screaming in pain, and therefore were not losing any life points, disproving the Contender's speculation. Sadly, the Instigator could not point this out, allowing the judges of the debate to be falsely convinced that the Contender was right on a crucial point when he was wrong. Debate 2: . http://www.debate.org...The claim: "For another, the Patronuses can't fly. It would have no use in the mid-air battle. My opponent argues that the stag would run into Midna. Run, not fly. "It was completely necessary for the Contender to make this point in Round 5, because through the debate, it wasn't determined that Midna would attack Harry Potter until Round 4, leaving the Instigator to introduce the Patronus defense in Round 5. A voter would read the claim that Patronuses cannot fly and accept it as a valid refutation. However, had the Instigator and Contender switched places, the Instigator would have been able to refute this claim through evidence, such as this picture that demonstrates a Patronus not flying, but running on air, which is satisfactory to the conditions that he originally described: . http://harrypotter.wikia.com...All three of these contentions can probably be summarized in a few sentences: because the Contender gets one round of argumentation to which the Instigator has no opportunity to reply, he or she may make statements that only need to sound plausible in order to persuade a voter without risk of being countered in any way by the Instigator. Had the Instigator and Contender switched places in such a debate, the Instigator would have had a chance to refute the claims made by the Contender, significantly altering how the voting on the debate would turn out. With that, I leave the floor to my opponent. Good luck, Ore_Ele.