Wikipedia should be a valid source for projects in schools

first off on the debate over definitions my give no reason to prefer his definition over mine so you should take my over his because he has given no reasons why his is superior to mine no at the point where I can prove that it is even 1% better then his you still use mine over his. so extend my definition that school is 1: an organization that provides instruction: a: an institution for the teaching of children reasons to prefer 1.fairness- extend that it is imposable to debate over if fish could use wikipedia. no this creates a double bind ether my opponent says that fish could use wikipedia so we can debate it ability to be useful or he concedes my definition and we debate on the topic if it should be a valid source. 2.writer's intent- my opponent supports my own point with his answer when he states that it is first because it is more commonly used thus because this would mean that there is a higher chance that definition is the correct on for this situation 3.framer's intent- my opponent wants me to prove that what i said was the framer's intent when I'm the framer so i would have the best understanding of the my intent for the debate. secondly we can see the intent of the framer though definition of other words of the topic in this case the word project as my opponent defines as "Education. a supplementary, long-term educational assignment necessitating personal initiative, undertaken by an individual student or a group of students." because of both words students and personal we see that this is referring to people and not fish meaning in the context of the resolution you prefer my definition of school over his because of his own definition of project 4.Reasonability- now he claims that i have not proved that we can not look at it from the prospective of a fish but this as well creates a double bind for my opponent because only why to see this form the prospective of a fish would require fish to be able to use the internet meaning he would have to drop the argument about fish not being able to use wikipedia or he concedes my definition of school and we debate about people this is the only why to have an educational debate over the topic. to defend against my opponent's attacks first i would like to say that you shouldn't flow these arguments because i only have one speech that i should be reviewing the debate rather the having to go into details over argument made in his last round so it is abusive because i have little time to defend against them 1. my opponent claims that because there is a great verity is a bad, but turn this verity is good for 4 reason 1 because if you don't know about these topics this will increase your knowledge. 2 these quote distractions come from the in page link on wikipedia but these are limited to related articles to the the subjects so the improve the ability to learn turning my opponent's argument. 3 this is better then research with things like google if you search the inter internet because of the chance of going to inaporpreate website meaning that wikipedia is still better then searching the internet. 4 these random thing could be what they are suppose to research ex: what is your favorite pokemon for a survey so having the list of pokemon would be helpful. 2. my opponents arguments 2-4 are all based on his definition so because of the reason to prefer my definition these should be disregarded, but to answer them anyway. first he claims that futurama is bad source to use because of 2-D worlds, trips to end of the universe, and Nixon. But none of these can be seen as bad because he provides no reasons why there may not be a flat planet, or reason why we could not reach the end of the universe. And in defense of Nixon the constitution states "nobody can be elected more than twice" but because Nixon is using Bender's body the this don't effect he that why he has elected. secondly there is a prototype reverse scuba suit today so there is no reason to not believe that this could improve to what is in the show. http://www.technovelgy.com... . next he claims that ï¿½ the fish will die but if you look at the article it says ï¿½ the coral reefs will be gone not fish so the effect will only be minimal. As well if you believe in evolution that fish evolved to amphibians then to reptiles then to mammals then finally to human meaning in a way people are fish meaning that because I can use Wikipedia a type of fish is using Wikipedia. Now to the real debate 1.My opponent argues that because this information is from 2005 it is too old but that is 3 years and no reason to believe that is too old. The he claim that there are mistakes in Wikipedia but because there are so few it is just as good as Encyclopedia Britannica which is allowed as a source on projects so why don't we let people use something just as good. Then claims they are equal on science but this is good because if they are as good Encyclopedia Britannica then this is a good source. 2.Cross apply my arguments why this verity of articles is good 3.Then the fact that all problems are not fix instantaneously but if you look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org... we see that the change are do at a rapid pace. Second pages can be locked to prevent vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org... 4.my opponent claims that because people who are not qualified can change Wikipedia it is not a valid source, but 1 there are experts how do change the information as well and 2 if students were to look on the internet they could still find bad information with no regulation so Wikipedia is still better then the plain internet my opponent last argument is that nothing exists. To defend this think of it this why if if voting for con means nothing exist the nthe vote you just casted would not exist meaning the only vote that would matter would be the ones for pro because they would be the only ones that exist. So this turns all of his reason to vote con because if you vote for him you vote wouldn't count so regardless of the out come of the round I still win because votes for me are the only ones the exist. secondly we couldn't live in the matrix because have you ever seen someone randomly change in to a man in suit for no reason, also if we where in the matrix fish could use the internet because in the matrix anything can happen like people flying meaning again this turns his arguments. so now for voters 1. because all my opponent's arguments are defensive there is no reason that wikipedia is bad just that it is not good so at the point that there is no neg on the topic if the is a 1% chance that wikipedia is good you vote pro. 2. because i have meet my burden of proof with all of the above arguments 3. because as i stated if you vote for con your vote doesn't count and the only ones that do are mine. so even if he has more vote his vote equal nothing and still will lose. 4. because my opponent's arguments have little evidence to support them besides definitions while i have provide evidence to support my side 5. because of all the contradictions that can prove my side you vot for the pro