unfair advantage in debating

Rebuttals:"There is an imbalance in the fact that the contender goes last, there are 3 possible reasons for this:""1)The contenders side is most fresh in the readers mind when they finish reading. "Which makes them. .. . What? From what you're saying, it affects the voting system, the potential voters are already making up their minds once they read the most fresh and latest argument, which is from the contender. As I said before, someone has, must and needs to speak last. Also, I'd like to add that when the voters side with he person who has the last word, then those voters are the ones you should blame for being unfair, not the debating system. "2)the instigator may have a very good rebuttal, or the contender may have made a mistake, or inaccuracy, and the instigator is powerless to respond to the contenders statement. This puts the instigator at a disadvantage. "At the bolded texts, isn't that an advantage for the instigator? OK, let's assume that the instigator was given the oppurtunity to refute the contender's last statement, which may be a very good rebuttal, or maybe an inaccuracy, error or mistake that the instigator made that can be refuted again, the contender is powerless to respond, and it puts the contender at disadvantage. As I said again, who should make the last statement, because someone should do so. "3)The instigator is powerless to respond to what the contender says in the last round, as opposed to the contender, who has opportunity to respond to everything stated by the instigator. "See my rebuttal for #2. "My opponents first argument is that there are disadvantages in favor of the instigator. .. . I would argue 2 points to all these arguments:""1) These are not advantages in the debate, these are the debate itself. 2 people agreed to debate a topic with certain conditions. what difference does it make who wrote them? Its not like they agreed to debate, and then the instigator got to do all this, rather it is the other way around. "Lol at the bolded texts. My opponent seems to be confused here, and is kinda confusing me as well. This is an advantage because the instigator is the one who sets up the 'WHOLE' debate. Which gives him an advantage because, as I said, is in control of the rules and sets up the topic to discuss, and the contender would either accept it or not, which can be a disadvantage to the contender since she has no choice but to pick the only side (pro or con).2)The statistics show a nearly 2:1 difference in the winning rates of contender to instigator. See my rebuttal below. "statistical rebuttal:"These arguments are baseless as it did not refute my rebuttal on it the previous round. So, I'll repeat it here, in case my opponent fails to read it again. "The DDO system lets anyone who register participate in debates, meaning newbies can instigate their own debates. But, some of those newbies make the debate then leave the site and tend to not come back, probably unpatient and not waiting for the opponent or just really forgetting. This is the fault of the instigator, not the system. Also, newbies are prone to make crappy resolutions which can attract experienced debaters to noobsnipe them. And, another reason the instigators lose, is that they forfeit. I've given sources on newbie-instigated debates above. "Now, I also also mentioned Ore_Ele's statement regarding this issue in R2, I will post it here so you can read:"Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500+ debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%. The likely reasons are because. ..1) Instigators are often new members that will not finish their debates (they can also accept debates and never finish them, but it is more likely they'll start one).2) Instigators often start with their arguments in R1, so the potential Contenders will not accept unless they are confident that they'll win because their opponent has revieled their hand.3) Contenders are more likely to find and exploit semantic arguments to get a technical win. "Source: . http://www.debate.org...Now, I want my opponent to refute those arguments. "My case examples,. .. .. Argument:. .. .. cases:"Reply/Conclusion: The fact you posted this is nonsense, you are just complaining because you lost as an instigator, how will you know if they voted because of the contender's last word? Are you a psychic? If the readers/voters click his sources and read his arguments, then you will see that there is NO evidence in those sources to suggest that the voters read the last word of the contender and voted in favor of the contender. This is all about my opponent complaining that he lost those 3 debates and 2 others, and possibly losing 8 more. All instigated by him. OK, so now, I will repeat, my opponent needs to refute the fact that if there is a disadvantage on not getting the last word (which there are none), then someone (the instigator or the contender) has/must/needs to speak last and there should be no disadvantage to the person who didn't speak last. There is no unfair advantage in debating, or rather the debating system. Do not blame the system, blame the voters if they committed such unfair practices on voting. I leave the floor to my opponent for his final rebuttals then I will proceed to mine. Good luck.