unfair advantage in debateing

My opponent presents some interesting statistics. However, most of them don't really show anything towards what he is implying. Sure, the #1 debater, has her last 9 debates being contender and winning all 9. Her winning all those debates is the reason she's #1. One thing my opponent does not do, is show at all how it is having the last word that gives this advantage. First, lets look at some more meaningful numbers. Danielle is currently ranked #1 with 357 counted debates (not counting ties). Of those, shes only instigated 35, and been the contender in 322. One might say that, oddly enough, that seems to match right inline with her win rate. However, we should note that her record of debates that she started is 32 - 3 (91.43%), while her record of debates that she has accepted has been 291 - 31 (90.37%). As we can see, these two numbers are statistically identical. If we move to #2 debate, Brian, we see that he has started 215 of his 276 debates. In the debates that he started, he is 116 - 99 (53.95%). And in the 61 debates that he accepted, rather than started, he is 43 - 61 (70.49%). Now with this, there is a statistical difference. But what this doesn't show us, is WHY there is a difference. If we focus on Brian here, looking at the debates he started, we see that the average person that accepted his open challenges, has completed 50.7 debates (this is weighted by the fact that some people have debated him multiple times) while when he has accepted other's debates, they have only done (on average) 25.7 debates. This shows clearly that when he issues a debate, he is more likely to face an experienced debater, than if he does the accepting. That will naturally weight the debates into his favor on being the contender. In fact, let us look at all debates, rather than just Brian's. In fact, if we look, the average instigator has completed 28.00 debates (this is weighted by the number of times they create debates). This is actually down from and average of 29.52 debates back at the beginning of 2011. While the average contender has 47.06 completed debates (down from 49.56 at the start of 2011). This clearly shows that contenders have more experience than the instigators, on average. So we have statistical reasons to explain why the instigator is at a disadvantage, contrary to the resolution, but let's also look at some logical reasons. 1) Last word is not important. Having the last word is not that important because most readers have already decided who the winner is by the evidence presented in proceeding rounds. If you look through a significant number of debates, you'll see that the last round has less characters used, less arguments presented, and less sources offered. This is because most members understand that it is poor conduct to do any more than summarizing in the last round. 2) Contenders know what they are up aganst. Contenders have an advantage by knowing who they are debating, and knowing (many times) what arguments they are going to be facing. By knowing these things, they can choose to accept if they believe they can win. The instigator does not have this benefit. They don't know who they are going to be debating and they don't know what arguments they will come across. 3) Instigators more likely to forfeit. Instigators (because they are more likely to be inexperienced than contenders) have a higher rate of forfeit than contenders. This is often because they want a fast pased forum, not a fact rich, indepth debate. They often start a debate, wait a few hours for it to be accepted, and then have to wait a day or two for their opponent's first round. by then, their ADD has gotten the best of them and they've moved on. All in all, I believe these show that there are other factors which play a much larger role in advantages and disadvantages, rather than having the last word, so that last word is not even close to "unfair".