Heavy Metal is the best genre of music.

Right, let's address some concerns. A rebuttal is a kind of argument or proof which rebuts (1); to rebut is to prove (something) is false by using arguments or evidence (2). (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com... So, in rebutting I have made arguments against my opponent's case, which is wholly consistent with the structure stipulated. After all, a rebuttal is a kind of argument. With that said, let's get onto some more rebuttals. ;) PRO responds to my unhinging his framework by contending that he didn't "bother establishing "meaningfulness" because [he] thought the definition was common knowledge." And indeed, it is, but PRO conflates 'definitions' and 'frameworks' in error, insofar as the two are not necessarily the same thing. I'm not taking issue with any definition, I'm rebutting the idea that meaningfulness could be a sufficient criterion to establish what constitutes the "best genre" ever. So, because his response does not undermine my rebuttal because it does not reestablish or ground the claim that "meaningfulness" is how we can know that any genre is the best ever, he drops my point and I have overcome his argument. However, in a separate claim, PRO asserts that "Though it is true that other songs in other genres can be just as meaningful or even more meaningful." Let's break this down: PRO concedes that if meaningfulness were a sufficient criterion for what constitutes the best song ever, that there are other genre's which could be just as meaningful or more so than heavy metal. So, at least some other genre's must have music, then, which is as meaningful or more meaningful than heavy metal. In that concession, he has negated his own first argument because if heavy metal is not as a whole more meaningful than all other forms of music, than it can't be the best genre ever, where "meaningfulness" is our measuring standard. Therefore, I have won that point. Moreover, PRO claims that "heavy metal will go where other genres seem to be afraid of going, and it's style and rough sound emphasizes that meaning to an extent which no other genre could hope to compete with." So, novelty, then, is PRO's new standard for meaningfulness. But, all new songs may breech novel territory and being novel or breaking new artistic ground to convey meaning is not something that's only found among heavy metal songs because all songs which are not like previous songs are, at least in some sense, novel, in that they are distinct creative products from others. Consequently, my opponent has yet again employed a standard that does not necessitate heavy metal's being the best genre ever -and he has failed to affirm the resolution. Therefore, I've won that point too. But, there are even bigger issues in play. The fact that novelty is itself a subjective criterion for meaning is problematic due to the reality that, as I have argued in this debate's penultimate round, the resolution requires objective criteria for heavy metal (the genre in question) to be established as the "best" ever. And, PRO's not done that. Instead, he's put forward some examples of reasons why he likes heavy metal, and I can appreciate that -but they don't mean that heavy metal is the best genre ever -and he admits this, sort of, when he says that when he concedes that "not all metal songs are meaningful, but this can be extended to literally every other genre. Not all rap songs are meaningful, neither pop or rock songs are ONLY meaningful" in the fact that in measuring meaning, he's applying his own subjective criteria to evaluate meaningfulness. My opponent never really responds to this argument, but instead wants to take issue with my example about why a particular type of person might not find heavy metal musical (the fundamentalist Christian). But, his rebuttal doesn't actually address the argument or negate the example's function -it instead tries to take issue with religion's having an impact on musical taste in all cases, which of course it does not, nor did I say that it did. So, subtly, my opponent's misunderstanding has resulted in him straw manning my argument, which he never responds to, and in effect therefore still stands. To conclude, I did not violate the structure stipulated in round one. Rebuttals are arguments, so there is nothing I did which is inconsistent with what PRO wanted. In this debate I've negated every single argument my opponent has offered from two angles: I've illustrated his his standards are insufficient to establish what constitutes the best genre ever and I've argued that even if his standards for what constitutes the best genre ever were sufficient, heavy metal does not meet those criteria because there is nothing about heavy metal which makes it stand out above all other genre's. A third perspective I've advanced is that there are problems with even asserting that any genre could be the best genre ever because of the inherent subjectivity necessitated by that evaluation. PRO never responded to that. Therefore, on those three fronts, I've won this debate.