Debate is not the surest way to win over your opponent.... .

A brief roadmap: In this argument, I will propose my contentions, only, and then include my rebuttals in the third and final round. However, first I"d like to clarify a few things from my opponent"s first case. My opponent stated that his definition of win over is "to convince". On the other hand, I proclaimed mine to be "victorious in an argument". Though the wording may be different, both definitions basically lead to the same idea and are practically identical. To victor in an argument, one can directly infer that the argument has been bought and convinced. Furthermore, for the definition of "surest", my opponent argues that surest means most assured, not assued; however, I strongly disagree since as supported by numerous dictionaries such as Thesaurus.com, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, etc, surest means to be confident in one's beliefs or ideas, in other words assured. Most assured may make complete sense; however, it overemphasizes the true value of what the word "surest" upholds and therefore is not suitable for this debate. Finally, my opponent argued about the definition of "opponent" which I do not quite understand how it affects the course of the debate. Yes, an opponent can mean several friends. So what? He or she fails to elaborate on his point. Ladies and Gentleman, hello, this is Lawrentian here to negate the following resolution: "Debate is not the surest way to win over your opponent." Contention 1: Purpose What is the basic purpose of the idea of debate? Sources such as Dictionary.com, Merriam Webster, Oxford Dictionary, Legal Dictionary, etc. agree that debate, is to "argue about a follow subject or topic". As supported by the majority of the dictionaries, to debate means to argue and convince one another on a specific topic. How more specific must I need to get? What more evidence can deny the fact that the basic purpose of the existence of debate is so that one can convince another, most specifically an opponent, on an argument. What consists of a debate? Let"s see, we have a framework, multiple contentions and rebuttals. How can it ever be possible for an argument, in another form other than debate, to reach into more depth than that of debate. Debate not only provides arguments to convince an opponent, but also requires rebuttals and evidence to defend or attack ones/the opponent"s contentions. If to win over really means to be victorious in an argument and convince like my opponent and I agree, debate has ought to be the surest method because it exposes the vulnerabilities and strengths in ones argument, enabling the judge to differentiate between what is right and what is wrong. Debate is not only to argue, but also to master the art of convincing; in other words, winning over. Contention 2: Contradiction My dear opponent argues that debate is not the surest way to convince one on an argument or topic. As a result, he/she wishes to defend and argue for his belief so he instigates a DEBATE on DEBATE.org. Hmm, do I sense a contradiction? My opponent clearly instigated this topic because he/she firmly wanted to argue the fact that debating is not a beneficial and efficient method to argue a problem; however, ironically, he/she does exactly what his resolution disagrees with: using methods of debate to convince an opponent on a topic. Therefore, as stated by the law of paradox, irony and contradiction, my opponent clearly agrees that debate is an assured method to win over your opponent. I would like to remind the judges that my opponent does agree that his stance on this debate topic is ironic and contradictory as shown in the first sentence of his 2nd round argument. He or she claims that it is a symptom, similar to that of cutting trees which I do agree with. However, even if it were to be a symmetrical symptom, it does not change the fact that he or she is contradicting his/her stance on the debate, therefore making his arguments ironical and moreover: unreliable. Based off of my definition of surest, by effectuating the means of debate to argue a topic that disagrees with the efficiency of debate, my opponent DOES agree debate is an assured or "surest" method of convincing an opponent or "friend". Thank you.