Rap battles on DDO should be freestyled on the spot

Thanks, TS. Pro doesn't address my BOP analysis, so I'll extend it: he is making an affirmative statement that applies to all rap battles on DDO, and therefore must be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Pro states that it's customary to freestyle rap battles; however, this is again an irrelevant statement because this is an "is" statement rather than an ought statement. Pro argues that because something is customary outside of DDO that it should be customary inside DDO, but this argument is fundamentally incoherent, and he doesn't establish a link from "is" to "ought." Pro concedes the point I made regarding freestyling aimlessly, incoherently with nothing more than racial slurs. Note that I had made this point in my prior argument to rebut his point that "freestyling on the spot demonstrates you can creatively rap about a diversity of things." Pro doesn't address the rest of my rebuttal, so he concedes on this point. Pro responds to my argument that time is crucial to allowing rappers to translate effort and commitment into refined, creative arguments by stating that he has freestyled many of his rap battles on DDO, and believes that he can demonstrate that the commitment and results are identical for freestyling. There are several problems with his argument. First, he has the burden of proof, and we have no way to verify that he has "freestyled most of his raps." In fact, from where we stand, with those battles having all been completed and no way to know where TS or how long he took in compiling his raps, how much time or effort or commitment he put into them, so this point cannot carry his burden of proof. Second, even if he COULD demonstrate "the same results" or "just as much commitment," this would be irrelevant because he is suggesting replacing non-freestyle rap battles with freestyle rap battles. He wants X instead of X + Y. This impossible-to-prove point cannot even carry his burden.I argued last round that people draw their inspiration from different things and many learn differently. He only responds to my argument indirectly by saying that people should write down their ideas so they don't forget them. This does not address my point at all. Moreover, under a system of freestyling, you can't "free write" because you need to rap on the spot, so this point of his is completely moot. My argument hasn't even been addressed.I pointed out last round that many rap battles from Mikal, BOT and others, which weren't freestyles, were quite well done in my judgment, and Pro only responds by saying that he "doesn't consider Mikal a battle rapper." This point is utterly irrelevant, though. He is entitled to his opinion about Mikal and his rapping abilities, but per the definition of battle rap -- "a type of rapping that includes a lot of braggadocio (bragging and boasting) content "combined with put-downs, insults, and disses against real or imaginary opponents" [1] -- Mikal has in fact engaged in battle rap, and is therefore a battle rapper. Pro goes on to criticize Mikal's, BOT's, and spaceking's rapping abilities. Note not only that this is beyond the scope of the resolution and doesn't at all address my arguments, but Pro has dropped my point from last round that "effectiveness is subjective, as is assessment of the adequacy of momentum." He doesn't at all dispute that judging rap batltes is highly subjective. Even the language of mine which he quoted accounted for this, as I remarked that I and many others -- note the subjectivity and lack of categorcial affirmation -- found their raps to be effective. Pro is entitled to think what he will about their lyricism, momentum, and whatnot and to feel as though their material were better had they been freestyling, but he provides no objective basis for proving this assertion true. He goes on to provide lists and lists of lyrics. However, these are wildly outside the scope of the resolution, and all he is doing at this point is taking up space and flooding his sources with irrelevant links that do not nothing to establish this resolution. He doesn't even respond to the argument he quoted, which criticized the notion of judging raps categorcially. Pro claims that he has no conceded the debate, but he has. The resolution stipulates that rappers should "freestyle on the spot." Some people, naturally, are busy, and he himself admits post facto that this is an exception. By accepting an exception to the resolution he has laid out, one of which was not agreed upon beforehand, he has conceded the debate by poking a hole in his own resolution. He claims that this situation may be unlikely because "the debate technically takes three days." This isn't so in the case of a freestyle rap where you likely have 10 to 15 minutes per round. Moreover, even if you DID have three-day rounds, people are busy for a variety of reasons, so Pro's statement accomplishes nothing more than twisting himself into a pretzel in order to backtrack on an earlier remark. He says that people may accept knowing they have time to respond; well, yes, I take it that no one would accept a rap battle if they didn't have time. But if 15-minute-per-round freestyles are the norm, people simply aren't going to participate, or they're going to try and forfeit -- note that increased forfeiting was another point Pro dropped. Pro fails to adequately rebut my point on cheating. He simply says that debates could be set to 72-hour rounds and people should freestyle, anyway. This completely defeats the purpose of his proposal because there is absolutely no way to discern whether someone has actually freestyled. If you set 72-hour rounds, the entire purpose of Pro's proposal fails apart because there is absolutely no enforcement mechanism. He concedes not long after on quality -- that with more time inevitably follows the potential for better aggregate quality -- so it follows from this that someone could choose NOT to freestyle and devote more time to their rap than another, resulting in a completely unfair advantage. Even under his proposed system, which itself is absurd and shifting the goalposts, this isn't doable or desirable. After conceding on quality, he asserts that you should only use what you know beforehand. He does NOT defend this statement, nor why this should be the case on a debating website that values research and learning. Why would he want to suppress learning, research, and effort on a site that aims to nurture them? He provides an anecdotal example of a past debate wth Ajab which is utterly irrelevant for a few reasons: (1) he can't prove that he freestyled (2) he can't prove that the rap would not have been better had both debaters researched and (3) he cannot prove that the rap was superior to what it would've been even had he freestyled. The point is utterly irrelevant because I'm not advocating the banning of freestlye raps; again, he wants a one-size-fits-all plan, whereas I want both to be viable options as people differ in terms of what they excel and are comfortable in. He claims that encouraging freestyle would help newer rappers practice. He doesn't demonstrate how, then goes on to say they he "never said they had to freestyle during a rap battle." His resolution would REQUIRE that they freestyle, so unless he would like to, again, refute his own resolution, he must in fact take the position that even newer rappers must freestyle. He discusses warm-ups and suggests that people freestyle on paper before battling. This is all fine and good except you can't "practice on paper" if you're freestyling with five to ten minute rounds, so once again, Pro refutes his own points.Pro then concedes again the there is a necessary trade-off between time and quality, and concedes that this may result in including filler words. With respect to what DDO stands for, clearly Pro has not read the DDO homepage: "Debate.org is a free online community where intelligent minds from around the world come to debate online and read the opinions of others. Research today’s most controversial debate topics and cast your vote on our opinion polls" [2].The homepage emphasizes intelligent banter and research, both of which require time and effort. He tries to, with a broad brush, suggest that this doesn't apply to rap battles. There is no basis for this exception. Moreover, rap battles certainly can use sources, as both Mikal and Shadowking have done [3], and involve submitting -- and perhaps making, via flipping bars -- arguments in the same way as regular debates.He claims that troll debates are going to happen regardless and thus wouldn't discourage rap battles. He doesn't connect this pint at all except by saying that there is nothing preventing them from being made, but this simply isn't the case. The site moderators work tirelessly to delete troll debates. Again, Pro drops my point regarding boosting and forfeiting. He goes on to strawman my argument by suggesting that I said that rap battles do not bring intelligent debate. I said nothing of the sort. I said a possible rise in troll rap battles to boost ELO, or battles that ended up being trolled due to lack of time, would be a drain on the site. Pro provides a study saying that rap battling leads to "freer oral expression." So? The study also said that freestyling decreases activity in parts of the brain that "control and suppress," which suggests that people will be rasher and say dumber things they may regret later whilst rapping [4]. This doesn't at all advance Pro's burden of proof, nor provide a reason as to why freestyling should be the only form of rapping on DDO.ConclusionI have refuted all of Pro's arguments, while he has dropped and conceded many of mine. I don't have enough characters to provide a thorough list of arguments he has dropped, unfortuntely. At this point, he has yet to fulfill his BOP and has even conceded the debate.[1] - http://tinyurl.com...[2] - http://tinyurl.com...[3] - http://tinyurl.com...[4] - http://tinyurl.com...