This house would support removing or replacing the word "the" in the English language.

Let's first take a look at the resolution. The first observation is that the resolution specifies that This House, the current house of representatives, would support replacing the word "the". This means that it is the burden of the Pro to prove not that it would beneficial to remove "the", but that the house would support it. Secondly, it should be noted that the Neg doesn't need to prove anything in this round, simply refuting the Aff's arguments is enough. At the end of the round, a draw would go to the Neg because the house wouldn't change its side because of neutrality. Finally a definition. replace will be defined as "to take the place of especially as a substitute or successor" [1] Because of the second observation, my first speech will be a rebuttal instead of an opening case. Argument 1: "And" is used less and gets its own symbol. Response 1: Wikipedia cannot necessarily be trusted. My opponent could have easily just gone onto Wikipedia and typed that in on an monitored article. Response 2: "And" is not actually being replaced by the symbol "&". Looking back to the definition of "and", replacing involves the replacer being the substitute or successor. However, in my opponents own case, "and" is spelled out four times, not including the times it was just being referenced as a word. What this means is that the symbol & is supplementing the word "and", not replacing it. [2] Argument 2: Increased efficiency of typing and texting. Response 1: Texting is not any faster with a symbol representing "the". In order to type the symbol "the", one must first click symbols, then click "the", and finally click letters. This is the same number of keys as it takes to just type "the" and it is slower than swipe texting. Response 2: Efficiency would not be improved for typing either. If you look to my second response to argument 1, my opponent used the word "and" many times in his case instead of the symbol. This means two things. First, the symbol would be nonunique to the Aff as no replacing is occurring. Second, efficiency won't go up if the symbol is not used. Response 3: Typing "the" doesn't actually take that much time. The average speed is 41WPM, or 2/3 words per second [3]. However, "the" is not the average length word. The average length of a word in the English language is just over 8 characters, or to be generous, double the length of "the" [4]. This means that in three seconds, the average person can type "the" four times. Replacing a word that doesn't actually take time to type wouldn't improve efficiency. Argument 3: The unproven. My opponent has not yet proved one necessary fact for his case. He has no evidence whatsoever that the house would support this. Look back to observation 1, proving that replacing the word "the" would be beneficial cannot alone win the round for the Aff. My opponent must prove that the house would support his act in order for my opponent to win. Summary: The reasons to vote Neg are as follows: 1: My opponent has shown no proof of the house's willingness to support this line of action 2: My opponents desire for a symbol to be used would supplement, not replace, the word "the". For that reason, the argument is nonunique to the Aff. In a world without anything replacing "the", the symbol can exist. This means that my opponent's entire "&" argument is invalid. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]http://www.debate.org... [3]http://www.ratatype.com... [4]http://www.ravi.io...