deseptive flaw in debateing system

Interpretation of what is being argued herePro has said. .. "I am proposing that the instigator is at a disadvantage due to the fact that the contender has last word. "When Pro says "the instigator is at a disadvantage" what is being implied here is that the instigator when compared to the contender is ALWAYS at an OVERALL disadvantage. I shall be seeking to show that even though Pro correctly points out one area where the instigator always has a disadvantage, this does NOT mean that the instigator is always at an OVERALL disadvantage. 1) The instigator gets to form the resolutionPro objects to my argument here saying. .. "My opponent provides an example of how the wording of the resolution makes a difference, I take issue with this example as they are 2 totally different resolutions. Of coarse wording makes a difference but that doesn't mean the initiator has an advantage. "Allow me to be a bit more specific here, what I am saying is that the instigator gets to form the resolution, this provides the instigator with a possible advantage as the resolution sets the stage of what the instigator will have to argue for and against. Clearly the instigator can use this forming to their advantage. Just because the contender agree's to debate the formed resolution doesn't change this. Pro says. .. "A second point is even if this would be an advantage it doesn't mean it is equivalent to the disadvantage of the opponent having last word. "I agree, it doesn't necessarily mean that this point in of its self means that the instigator is now even, rather I make this point and other points to make a cumulative case against the implied claim that the instigator is always at a disadvantage.2) The instigator gets to make the first argumentThe instigator makes the first argument, and thus is immediately on the offensive against the contender, surely this is obvious ? By making the first argument, you force your opponent to respond to YOUR argument, If Pro can't see the advantage that the instigator has there then I will merely make this point to the readers.3) The instigator can launch a pre-emptive strike against counter arguments/rebuttalAs the instigator not only do you get to make the opening argument, but you can address a possible counter argument even before your opponent has a chance to respond. Once again, I think this is trivially obvious. Pros statistical analysisAs the saying goes, there are lies, damm lies and then there are statistics. We should be carefully about how data is interpreted. In this example bobby henderson (may not be real name) shows the data between the number of pirates and the global average temperature. Bobby comes to the conclusion. .. "You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature. " [1]Pro says. .. "The "top" debater on ddo (i. e. most experienced ddo debater): In the past 9 debates has been contender every time winning 9 0ut of 9 that means in her past 9 debates she choose contender every time and won every time. "That top debator has a name by the way, angry lesbian femminist, I mean Danielle. . http://www.debate.org...I started looking at Danielle most recent debates when she went instigator, in the last 14 debates as instigator danille won all of them and I got sick of counting up her wins. Suffice to say using Danielle stats hardly proves Pros claim here. The point being here there are many other variables to be considerd here and Pros analysis doesn't take those into consideration. For example, how does Pros analysis filter out the fact that better debaters will often defeat worse debators ? How does Pros analysis take into account that sometimes a person will create a fun debate or a serious debate and thus not put in as much effort ? How does Pro take into account that a contender gets to choose which debates they will take and thus take debates on subject they know more about and thus have a better chance of winning ? Take that last point for example, what if you could overall show in stats the contenders having a better winning percentage, would this be enough to prove Pros theory here ? I don't think so as Roy Latham one of top debators on DDO explains. .. "The instigator has the advantage of picking the topic, one he is familiar with. But presenting a strong case opening R1 scares away good debaters, who worry about winning. If anyone takes the debate at all, it's likely a noob who ends up forfeiting. If no one accepts, the time spent preparing is wasted. I'm using the "first round is for acceptance only" scheme more frequently these days. " [2]How does Pros interpretation of the data take this into consideration when looking at why contenders will have a higher winning percentage ? It doesn't. Take yours truly for example, I have an overall winning percentage of 34.25% [3], yet in my past 10 debates where I was instigator I have winning percentage of 60%. Should I interpret this as meaning that being instigator means having an advantage ? as my last 10 debates as instigator is almost double of my overall winning percentage ? of course not, cause there are too many other variables going on here which have not being accounted for, just likes pros interpretation. I look foward to Pros reply. Sources[1] . http://www.venganza.org...[2] . http://www.debate.org...[3] . http://www.debate.org...