Any given person should do debate (details below)

"I'm sorry, I did not know that we would be debating this round by copying and pasting all of our main points without any actual participation on our part. " How so? I just responded to my opponent's points with several responses. I did not copy and paste. Yet again, my opponent is providing a illogical statement. 1. Resolution too specific I am the Instigator. I can choose the topic. My opponent is trying to say that just because I used my right to choose the topic he should win. How is this logical? Furthermore, he accepted this debate. If he can find no argument against my position, that is his fault, not mine. Therefore he shouldn't go around whining that my resolution is too specific. The reason I used this resolution rather than "Any given person" is because I wouldn't expect a bum in India, for example, to take up debate. 2. "Definition of time" This is in no way an unfair stance. If you as the con can prove that debate is actually going to be detrimental, then you win this debate. Of course, as of now, you still have not proved that. Again, my opponent is whining about a debate that he himself accepted. If he finds he cannot debate me, he should then concede rather than try to get votes by launching illogical "unfairness" arguments. 3. No specification between competitive and recreational I assumed my opponent would have the common sense to realize I mean every kind of debate, including debate. org. But, yet again, I have been disappointed. I did not mean to frame it towards competitive debate only. I would also like to point out debate. org is also competitive. I am debating my opponent, for example, and that is competition. 4. "His evidence does not refute my points" First off, any benefits towards students applies even with debate. org. Let's go through the benefits my evidence cited. Critical thinking: I am thinking critically of my opponent's arguments. I think critically of any opponent of mine whenever I am debating on this site. So this still applies. Literacy: On debate. org you write more than you do in competitive debate. I would argue you get even more literacy skills. Admission to college: If you are a good debater on debate. org, you get the benefits and you are more likely to be admitted to college than someone who has never debated. The rest apply. Yes, admission to college and scholarships are not quite AS high with debate. org rather than competitive debate, but they still are a benefit. Also, any of the benefits quoted in the first speech that are based on the kid learning faster apply. For example, if you are on debate. org and you actually debate (unlike the way my opponent has been doing by providing illogical arguments), then you get the thinking skills and it's easier for you to do any subject and therefore graduate. Moving on. .. Now that I've refuted my opponent's last post, let's go over my responses to his first post. In the last post, my opponent made no attempt to refute my responses, most likely because he can not. The only thing he said about them was in the last sentence: " All of the evidence is framed toward competitive debate, so it does not in any way refute my points. " I will be going over my points and 1. Showing how all except two did not even depend on the benefits of debate evidence, and 2. The ones that did use the benefits that still stand even without competitive debate. 1. a. No b. No c. No 2. a. No b. Sort of. .. Basically said that debate will build up their brain. But again, I went over my evidence and showed how it still applies to even debate. org. So this response still stands. c. No d. No 3. a. Yes, I did use the benefits of debate. But I used the student benefits of debate, which all still apply to debate. org b. No c. No As you can see, ALL of my responses still stand. And as I've responded to his last post, he has no points on me. I have yet to see my opponent actually debate me and respond to my arguments.