Contrary to popular belief, strategy is important in the game of rock paper scissors.

Alright, so PRO's first response to my case is the following: #1. PRO's position against my argument is that "This debate isn't about how common a belief it is that strategy is involved in RPS and that 'contrary to popular belief' is merely as a hook to his stance", thus, he would like you to believe that he does not have to prove whether that statement is true or not as that is not what this debate is about." However, there remains two key flaws that make this defense of the opposition's easy to look past. A) He included "Contrary to popular belief" in the very TOPIC TITLE. The topic title is meant to signify what the debate concerns as is the case with with other forms of debate. Looking at it that way, does my argument not address this debate's concerns? B) Most importantly, even if PRO did not mean to include whether or not something was contrary to popular belief, the fact of the matter is that at no point does he provide a resolutional analysis in his first round; he never attempts to explain what the debate is about. Rather, to get out of having to make the first move, he simply insist that his opponent be the one to start this debate. Unfortunately for him, although such action would enable him to get out of having to make the first move, it also allows the opposition to decide what the direction the debate goes on by providing arguments as well analyzing the topic. To go into example: PRO is essentially the equivalent to a mayor who has decided to remove all traffic lights and signs in a city in attempt to save cash, only to get upset AT the citizens when he realizes the ridiculous amount of bad traffic and automobile accidents that have come about since his decision. Thus, when voting, I urge you to keep in mind that PRO brought this misunderstanding on himself and should initially provide arguments in his first round in the future (as well as a definition of the topic) if he wishes not to cause problems like these in the future (as in assume his opponents knows what he wants to debate about). That said, for this debate, you are to accept my analysis simply because PRO allowed me the first move (the first arguments as well as an opportunity to decide the direction of the debate) and provided no clarification on whether or not "half of the topic title" was meant to be a part of the debate. In no way should I be punished for his mistake. #2. In terms of disputing my first contention, upon quick observation, it must be noted that my opponent has not attempted to uphold his side of the resolution and provide evidence. Don't buy into his "the voters will agree it is common belief" point as this debate isn't about what you think is or isn't the case, but rather what WE debaters present in the round. In addition, don't buy his testimony on there being people at his school agree with his side of the resolution. This means nothing, given that I could very well say the same. In fact, if we are to take "people we claim t know of" as evidence, then you should look at the valid one I've provided in the first round as the number of people I've found is enough to participate in renowned national and world wide tournaments. So far, I've been the only side to provide evidence for my side of the resolution, thus naturally, there is more weight to my case than there is to my opponents (though even if you don't buy the weight I've contributed, the burden of proof belongs to PRO and since he has admittedly failed to fulfill this burden, you should vote against him regardless of whether or not you buy my evidence). As far as his response to my evidence goes: >>> RE: The owner of the website is one man and is not equal to many. Quite aware of the fact that one man doesn't equal many. That's fine, however (and most unfortunately), that's not up for dispute. The ACTUAL point being made here is that this one "man" (which by the way is simply a false dichotomy concocted by PRO given the following facts on the "about us" portion of my source) serves to be a credible source when it concerns what goes on in the sport of RPS. >>>RE: The fact that there are national and world tournaments of RPS does not prove that the general population believes RPS is a game of strategy. It would seem that PRO misunderstood the point I was getting at. Allow me to elaborate on this 1) The purpose of any competition is to win by being the best. 2) In the game of RPS, the goal is to win by predicting what your opponents will do while doing the opposite in your favor. 3) Contrary to the practice of coin flipping and dice rolling, comprehension of an individuals thought pattern as well as an understanding of individuals around you allows there to manipulation of the game. In other words, it's a game of deduction. Thus, with these three facts taken into consideration, I make the following statement: Those who are aware of the game of RPS (as in, know the rules and how to play) understand (at very least unconsciously) the game to be a game of strategy as they can always use the skill mentioned in #3 to reach towards victory (even if you disagree with #3, #1 and #2 suggest for there to be skill involved). Thus, when noting that RPS is recognized as a sport even on national and world wide level, my position is easily supported. >>> People can attend tournaments for fun: Yes, they can. People can attend ANY tournament for fun, but this doesn't mean we can disregard a tournament as being a test of skill given that the goal of tournaments is for contestants to COMPETE with one another to win. Thus, it is quite clear that PRO's argument has no bearing in terms of whether or not you are to consider my point. #3. Finally, PRO argues that there will be situations in ANY game where no strategy is involved. He adds by stating that his only burden is to show that when two players want to win, there WILL be strategy involved. In response, I have three points: 1) This being possible in any game is nothing more than a non sequitur. If not, then I challenge PRO to show why it being possible in other games would defeat my argument which provides a situation where strategy is of no importance 2) The resolution isn't "Contrary to popular belief, when two players want to win, strategy is important in the game of RPS. Even more unfortunate is that this is by no means clarified in PRO's first round. 3) To fulfill his burden, in "russian roullette situations (situations where both players are attempting to determine who is more lucky. IN RPS CASE, playing the game at random or playing with eyes being closed would be an example), players would be playing to win while not relying on strategy. And that's all for now. Later