Wikipedia should be a valid source for projects in schools

My opponent begins by stating that his definition should be used because I have not given a reason why mine should be taken. However, let us look at this like a boss at a factory and the definitions are two products that can be made. Product A (my definition) was made first, is already being made and is successful when it is suggested that Product B (my opponent's definition) should be made. If there is no reason to make B over A, then the making of B is not going to supersede the making of A. Similarly, my opponent must provide a reason that his should supersede, not the other way around. Thus, I do not need to provide a reason. But, as my opponent prompts me to, I state the reason of utilitarianism. We must consider the fish to ensure the greatest benefit to the greatest amount of creatures for the greatest amount of time as my opponent's definition considers only one type of creature. I will now once again, show why my opponent's reasons for using his definition is invalid. 1. Fairness- My opponent fails to address the fact that he contradicts himself by arguing whether fish could use Wikipedia. Thus, all of his extrapolations including his "double-bind" are irrelevant. He also ignores and concedes the fact that fairness is not necessary. Thus, this point should be ignored. 2. Writer's intent- My opponent states that because a definition is more common, it is more likely to be the right one. However, lets once again take the table example. Does the fact that the definition concerning furniture being more common give it a higher chance of being right when a Representative wants to table an item? No, it obviously does not. Moreover, commonality has nothing do to with what the dictionary makers intended, which my opponent states writer's intent is about in his round 2 argument. Therefore, this point must be ignored. 3. Framer's intent - My opponent says we should accept what he says is the framer's intent because he is the framer. However, this allows the possibility of lying. He could of in fact had a different intent but changed it so it would be to his advantage. As he gives no proof that he is not lying, he cannot be a reliable source. Hence, this point must be ignored. 4. Reasonability- My opponent claims that for us to see from the perspective of fish, fish would have to be able to use the internet. However, this is not the only way. We could, for example, become pet psychics. Thus, my opponent's bind fails and this point must be ignored. As you can see, there is no reason for my opponent's definition to be preferred, thus mine stands as the definition for this debate. My opponent then says that my attacks are abusive because he should not have to go over them in his last round. However, these attacks are responses from my opponent's attacks in the earlier round. For this reason, my opponent is the one to blame, not me. I will now address my opponents defenses: 1. A. The knowledge that is gained distracts a learner from the project causing them to fail, and have self-esteem problems. B. However, there are links on certain words in the article that lead to subjects unrelated thus negating this. C. As Google is not considered a valid source, this is unrelated. D. However, even if you are researching the pokemon one, there are still thousands of unrelated articles to be distracted by. 2. A. As my definition stands, my 2-4 arguments still stand remaining uncontested so far. B. A 2-D world does not mean that the earth is flat. It means there are 2 dimensions. My opponent is disproved by the Math TAKS test. In this test, there are questions about volume, which requires 3 dimensions. As the TAKS only uses things that exist, we must be in a 3-D world. C. As this website says (. http://www.windows.ucar.edu...), there is no edge, so we can't go to it. D. In the Constitution, there is no exception for those with the same brain but different body. Hence, Nixon would not be eligible. E. Yes, but according to your source, it will not be made until 3000 by which all fish will be dead. F. Yes but if you look to the next paragraph it states "Coral reefs are indicators of environmental stress because they are quite persnickety about the conditions in which they live…. Because coral reefs provide diverse habitats for an abundance of animals and plants, when the coral dies because of global warming it will devastate the oceanic ecosystem. " So, where the coral dies, the fish die. Thus, all fish will be dead by 3000. As you can see, all of my opponent's defense has been destroyed and his arguments are sufficiently attacked. Moving to what my opponent calls the "real debate": 1. A Many things can happen in 3 years. Just ask any war expert. 3 years is plenty of time for more inaccuracies to be made and make the study invalid. B I stated that there are 39 more errors therefore making it worse than En. Britt. As such, a comparison of the two is not valid. C He then assumes that if the 2 are equal in science, they are equal in everything. This is an unwarranted assumption and until my opponent proves this true with evidence, it is false. 2. As the plain internet is not considered a valid source, this comparison is invalid. My opponent commits the straw-man fallacy and says I argue that nothing exists. If you press "Ctrl + F" and type in "nothing exists", you will only find it in my opponent's argument. I simply advocated that what we perceive is not without a doubt correct. My opponent's examples of a matrix only come from a movie (. http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com...). As my opponent as no experience living in a matrix, he cannot be a source for what goes on in one. Thus, my argument stands. Addressing my opponent's final speech: 1. If you look, all of my arguments challenge my opponent to show how Wikipedia is a valid source or to show that our perception is correct. As such, this point is invalid. 2. My opponent has not met his burden of proof as the one article he gave does not fully support him. Thus, he fails on the burden of proof. 3. This is based on a fallacy, which I have already exposed. 4. Sorry, but I do have evidence (def. and an article) and it is YOUR burden that contains the need for evidence. 5. My opponent as listed no valid contradictions thus this must be ignored.