The DDO debating system is fair

Rebuttal to rebuttal: 1)who is unfair: I maintain that the system is unfair. As I said before a system that leads to unfairness is unfair. I provided 2 comparative examples, my opponent only responded to one of them, the 2nd one. (1st was not responded to.) My opponent explains why the voter is unfair in that example. That doesn't preclude the system from also being unfair. My opponent keeps harping on the fact that it is the voters fault. This does not negate my statement that the system is unfair. They are non-contradictory statements. My opponent has not negated my claim that the system is unfair. 2)? My opponent states some one will have to go last there for the system is not unfair. I understood his point to be that it is inevitable, and there for not unfair. Apparently this is not his point, I am at loss to understand how else the fact that some one must go last makes it that the system is fair. It has not been mentioned by anyone else on any of the forums or other debates on this topic. 3)Alternative explanations: My opponent provides alternate explanations for the statistics, from Ore_Ele a much more experienced and informed member of ddo. 1)I am afraid my opponent did not respond to my reply. My statement and Ore_Ele's statements do not contradict one another. He did not say these are the only reason and I did not say this is the only reason. We each gave reasons. For a large gap in winning %. (One reason he probably didn't mention it was bec. I had already mentioned it in that thread.) 2)Further evidence that Ore_Ele does not disagree with my reasoning is: http://www.debate.org... note his comment, implying he does not think I really am wrong, but just taking the debate as a challenge, to see if he can beat me anyway. 3) even if he does disagree with me that is a weak argument. It would be like me bringing the fact that in my thread 5 ddo members agreed with me. Including a 41 yr. old (older than Ore_Ele). and Mongeese (a member of ddo for 2 years, double that of Ore_Ele, as well as a member of ddo top 10, with over double the # of debates.).[1] 4)I just realized that Ore_Ele clearly doesn't disagree with me, as evidenced by his suggestion of how to fix the problem: Here was Ore_Ele's suggestion [2] "Or just having (if R1 is for acceptance and not arguing). IR2 (instigator R2) be X characters (could be 2,000 or 4,000 or 8,000 or whatever they set it to. CR2 (contender R2) be 2*X characters. IR3 be 2*X characters. CR3 be 2*X characters. IR4 be 2*X characters. CR4 be X characters. That way, the contender has the room to address the Instigators arguments and make their own, and both sides get a grand total of 5*X character space to write in. This would obviously be adjusted to fit the number of rounds (be they 3 rounds, 2 rounds, 5 rounds, etc). There could also be a field that allows R1 to be acceptance (so this character count method applies only to rounds 2 and on) that is only 1,000 or 2,000 characters max (plenty for rules, definition, etc)." It is clear from his suggestion that he agrees (at least partially) with me as his solution pertains to my reasons and not his. I think this closes this argument, and in fact turns it around. 4)conduct: In direct response to this, the ans. is, no, this was not intended to be part of the debate, Points for conduct should not be taken from my opponent. (it was a different debate and therefore not relevant to his conduct in this debate.) The validity of the example he was trying to bring was valid as far as that point was concerned. The following is an unessential part of the debate, it can be skipped by those who understood the previous statement: (I am afraid there was a misunderstanding on the part of my opponent. I did not intend this as part of the debate, as evidence by: a) parentheses, (which my opponent left out his quotation of me.). b)prefacing with the words "as an aside. c)not numbering it, "1)", as I did for the rest of my arguments. d)Writing it, before writing, "my response is...". I am sorry if it was misunderstood I was merely venting my feelings about an injustice unrelated to this debate. It should have no bearings on this debate. Just to further show I was not attempting to gain conduct points I'll mention: a)it wasn't in this debate so how could I get conduct points for it. b) I purposely did not point out that it was my opponent who did the taking advantage as apposed to my follow up statement were I praised an action I did mention my opponent. I am sorry for the mis-communication I hope it has all been cleared up.) 5)response to my cases: My opponent makes the following objections: 1)I am biased since they were my own debate. And there for what. I made points in were the last word lead to an unfair advantage. The fact that these are my debates does not address my point. To address the point it would have to be shown that there were other reasons for the results or at least show that this was not necessary the reason. 2)The contenders arguments were better. My opponent did not provide any details regarding this so the best I can do is say no they weren't. I made specific points about why the debates were unfairly affected by the last word. My opponent did not respond to those points at all. (I think the most powerful point was made in case #4. http://www.debate.org... . Were the final argument of round 4 was dropped and repeated in round 5 and again drooped. This was forgotten by the voters by the end of the debate. ((I am willing to debate anyone that I should have won that debate, and would appreciate voters setting things strait over there.))) 3)These debate warrants are without warrant. My opponent did not explain himself (unless he means the previous 2 points which I addressed.) So I maintain: They were with warrant. summary: I maintained that there is an imperfection in the debate system. I gave a 3 part argument: 1)reason. 2)cases. 3)statistics. my opponent brought a # of arguments to which I have responded above. I thank my opponent for a well fought debate. It was truly enlightening. (I hope my point is acknowledged, and the imbalance is resolved to bring greater accuracy, and integrity to the debate system.) Thank you all, Vote con. [1]http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org...