unfair advantage in debating

Rebuttals: "Some one must go last. " That doesn't make it any less of a disadvantage. I agree that giving each side equal time is fair. However there is an unfair side to it. That makes it unfair. My opponents point seems to be that since there is no alternative it is fair. I disagree with this reasoning, that since there is no alternative that makes it fair. Further more there all alternatives to make it more fair. I put up a thread on this topic and got some suggestions. "system isn't unfair but rather the voters": From a logic standpoint even if we were to say that the voters are unfair that doesn't preclude the system from being unfair. A system which leads to unfairness is unfair. Consider the following extreme example: consider a court system in which the jury is told that if they acquit the defendant they will be awarded a million $. Would you say that the system is fair its just the jury which is unfair, obviously no. One more example to be shore my point gets across. Consider that it has been shown that a blue court room results in the jury being more sympathetic to one side. For the court room to be painted blue would be considered unfair not merely the jury, for being affected by the color blue. Regarding my opponents rebuttal, on my point that the instigator may have a good rebuttal to the contenders last round and is unable to make that rebuttal: The words, "This puts the instigator at a disadvantage", go on both the words, "the instigator may have a very good rebuttal", and the words "or the contender may have made a mistake, or inaccuracy. .. " I hope I have cleared things up. Regarding the next confusion, on the statement: "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. " There should be a comma after the word like, in the last sentence. I hope this has cleared things up. Statistical evidence: My opponent provides a # alternative explanations for the statistic, and asks that I refute them. I will not refute them. I agree that they are plausible reasons for my statistics. What I will argue is that the gap is too large (65.4 to 34.6) to be realistically contributed to those factors alone. In addition to the largeness of the gap my opponent has provided reasons why instigator should win. Despite these factors the statistic still shows such a large gap in favor of contender, leading me to further presume that the last word factor is contributing to this large gap. Further more, since I have argued in reason, that it would make sense that there would be a last word advantage, It follows that it is indeed contributing to this large gap. I think I have adequately responded to all my opponents rebuttals and therefore on the basis of my arguments in the previous rounds I conclude there is a last word advantage. To repeat the 3 reasons which are now the corner stone with the other points of my debate are as follows: 1) Psychologically: These are the last words that the reader read and they are freshest in his mind. 2) Instigator cannot respond to inaccuracies made by contender in last round. 3) The contender had a chance to respond to all statements made by his opponent while the instigator has not.