Second place is more valuable than first.

To road map this next round first I'm going to defend my number 1 argument then over view all the arguments then go into detail. 1. This is probably the most important point in this debate because it set the ground that we should be debating. To restate what I said before we should be looking at this debate from the point of view before the event because no were in the topic dose it state "winning" so why should we be debating about something that is not in the resolution. Secondly I support my framework for the debate by using the definition of valuable as being of use so we should be debating the usefulness of first and second place. My opponent tries to attack this point by claiming that I said that winning was not important, but I will concede that winning is good, but as I already said this debate is not about if winning is better but instead the use of being in first or second. My opponent's next attack is that in pre-races they still try for first but because of what I will state later that it would be more beneficial to come in second thus meet what I said we should be debating over the advantages of being in first or second place. But for why you should pick my interpretation of the resolution over my opponent's a. First my interpretation fit closer to the resolution because the only way for my opponent's interpretation to work is to add words to the topic. b. Secondly not to complain but this topic is sloped way towards the con side so you should support my interpretation because it makes the debate fairer. So now for an overview. To start off I will break down my opponent's arguments offensively and defensively. On number 2 all he has is defense that there is no advantage, number 3 only defense that there is no underestimating, number 4 defense that there is no stress, number 5 doesn't matter because it not related to the topic, number 6 defense that 1st has problems too, and number 7 defense on how he doesn't support the Patriots. But the point I'm trying to get at is that my opponent only has defensive arguments now the fact is that you can't win a debate off of just defense because if there is no reason show in the round how first could be better or as good as second so to put in percentage points there is a 0% chance that first is as good as second, but on the other side because even if you believe my opponent's arguments there still is at least 1% chance that second is better and because of this fact you are going to vote on the 1% chance that second is better over the 0% chance that first is better. 2. Now to extend this point the fact is that there is an advantage to being the underdog. This next argument even though new should be allowed because in response to a new argument from my opponent's last round. The fact is that people's opinion can affect people's performance if people believe that that the team can win then it will make the players think that if the fans believe in them then they have a chance at winning. Along with the crowd's the underdog advantage also has the benefit of that if the underdog win they receive more glory and will inspire them to do better . http://www.gamepuzzles.com.... this is what turns my opponent's argument because if there is more glory in the underdog winning then there is more reason for them to try to do better. 3. First on this point to defend the fact that the Patriots cheated, during the regular season the Giants and the Patriots played and what happened the Giants lost, but then in the Super Bowl the same teams hit each other and this time the Giants won so something must have been different between these two games. What I'm saying is that this proves that being in second is better because the only way to explain why this would happen is to assume that either the Patriots got cocky and didn't think that the Giants could win and didn't play as well as they could or the Giants got an underdog advantage because many people wanted them to win. The fact is that if your in first place you think your all that but because of this you are likely to underestimate your opponent and lose. 4. On this point we have to see that even though my valedictorian has failed he is bond to in time look at the Patriots they were undefeated until they cracked and lost. The fact is when your in second there is no pressure because people expect you to lose . http://archives.tcm.ie.... I have presented empirical evidence of how this pressure can cause people to crack and fail and when my opponent use his lacrosse team because they haven't lose but they will crack under the pressure in time. 5. On this argument my opponent's response isn't valid because it is based on winning, but as I said in my 1st point we shouldn't be debating over the value of winning first or second place. Also I win on this argument because my opponent has never denied what I said so you can consider this point dropped and vote pro now. 6. On this point you can cross apply what I said on my number 3 argument that because they're in first place they become cocky and because of this the team will be so cocky that they don't think that they have to improve. And because the team in second place doesn't have this cockiness they will be more likely to look at there faults and try to find ways to fix them. 7. Well just to answer to what my opponent said I'm not a lions fan I'm from Houston I pull for the Texans even though they're not good.