RyuuKyuzo should be allowed in the DDO Debating League

Noob snipingMy opponent concedes that the vast majority of his debates are noob snipes, to such an extent that there are no real 'great' debates that he can be said to have done. He then shifts to a red herring stating that I claim that my opponent has the capacity to become a 'great debater'. To restate, I am sure my opponent has it in him, when he gains more experience and does more difficult topics, to become a great debater. We simply cannot see his skill clearly because of the fact that he lacks scholarly and good debates. Bad opponentsMy opponent asks "if no such barriers exist [to finding good opponents], then what is the point of the league?" I do not understand why this question comes up here. The purpose of the league was expounded in my original post. The system was to create a database of good debates between the best members of the site. The explicit purpose was not to have "set opponents on set topics", but instead "your debates have a larger reach than just a win on your dozen of others, but will give you more gloating rights here". If my opponent's argument for joining the league is to give him more debates, then ultimately he does not understand the purpose of the league and thus does not deserve to be on the list. Moreover, the recent tournaments, including the newbie tournament and official DDO Open each had slots which my opponent could fill. However, he chose not to, and instead complains about not having any good debate tournaments to take part in (against peers or otherwise). These tournaments are in easy sight (currently above the DDO League post in the forums), so it is not due to any inability my opponent has. My opponent then goes on to complain that it is not his fault, then blame me for not giving him a place in the league. The fact of the matter is, my opponent lacks the evidence. If my opponent went to a university for a place in, say, a maths degree course, without the proper qualifications, then pointed to the fact that twenty-one people - no, let's say a million people - without even a GCSE/Middle school qualification in the subject say he's good at maths, then he won't get in. The same applies here. Until he can get the qualifications, then I reserve the right to say "no".Bad topicsThere's not much to say here. People have spent their entire life trainspotting, but it is still a minority and uninteresting thing (sorry to the trainspotting fans out there). People have spent their whole lives debating that the earth is flat. It's not a scholarly topic. It is not highly debated. I do accept people have made names on the field, becoming infamous quacks. Only those whose lives revolve around conspiracy theories (cough cough Geo cough) become infamous as a result.The Importance of rebuttalsYes, my opponent is right: he can equally say that opening arguments are most important. However, he is not the one setting up, running, and maintaining the system. My opponent's opening pitch may be skilled, but his rebuttals themselves can be called into question on scholarly issues. When looking at debates, the best ones are the ones with great rebuttals. The opening pitch is still strong and important, but without a rebuttal to continue the argument , the whole thing is moot.Not contentious issues Eugenics debate simplified:Argument One: Boo totalitarianism Argument Two, Three, Four, Five: Doesn't work I don't see why I had to go through that. His opponent picked up on this as well."I've already missed the point"My opponent can do this debate a hundred times over, and it won't count in favour of him in admission to the league. Why? To say it again: the purpose of the league is scholarly debate and material. This is not a scholarly debate. As such, it cannot count in favour of (or against) him in admission. Thus, this debate itself does not affirm the resolution. ConclusionThe way to register a great debater is to see how they go up against the great debaters of their time. When I first debated, I was arrogant and was honestly quite bad[1]. When I debated more I could see more and more about how I could do better. I learnt a lot from my losses, moved on, and now I'm slightly better than before. Would the debate I did with DanT back then be worthy to go among the idea of "great debates"? No, of course not. The purpose of the league is to form a database of great debates between great debaters. My opponent has not yet shown capability to being able to be classed as a 'great debater', has not done any 'great debates', and not been up against 'great opponents'. There is no case for him to be accepted in the league.Keeping in conduct to allow the same number of rounds each, my opponent should just post a "thank you" or similar in his final round. Thank you for reading.1 - http://debate.org...;