It is not necessary to understand things to debate them well.

My opponent seems to have to come an epic misunderstanding, I will clear this up later. For now I will content myself with rebutting his first arguments. ========================= BURDENS: ========================= To begin with, my opponent once again argues the burdens, stating that he only has to prove one instance. I will agree to this if my opponent in turn agrees that we will be talking about an average human being here. As he says, "I must only show that understanding something isn't a REQUIREMENT to debate it well. " This of course begs the question of who it is required for. Thus I am going to put forth the idea of the average human. My opponent is completely wrong about not being able to create over a thousand blades without being the bone of his sword (did you mean bane?! x.x), steel as his body, and fire as his blood. In fact all that is really required is access to ultimate blade works. Something which I will undoubtedly show I have at a later point. ======================== CASES: ======================== So now let us go on to each of my opponents hypothetical cases and prove how their is a certain requirement of understanding in each one. H3: My opponent, the esteemed Beem0r, argues that some resolutions are skewed towards one side or another. Thereby a debater can still win if he has a skewed resolution. This is true however my opponent has agreed that debating well includes, "holding ones ground against a debater who does understand." Thus in this scenario the debater is not holding any ground, he is simply winning because of a skewed resolution. Furthermore my opponent dropped a point from the last round, I stated, "However in order to attack the semantics you must first understand the words or at least some of the words used in the resolution. Thus even in my opponents case some level of understanding is required." The debater is still going to have to understand the words of the resolution otherwise the debater may as well have dropped each argument, something my opponent and I agreed does not constitute as debating well even if the debater does manage to win. It is rather obvious that my opponent is not a dinosaur. H4: My opponent offers three examples of ways in which a debater of superior logic can still debate well. "by pointing out logical fallacies" >> So now the logical fallacies become part of the debate, thus the debater who does not understand the topic still has some understanding of the logical fallacy which he is now debating. Keep in mind this resolution says, "It is not necessary to understand things to debate them well" the debater understands things in this scenario. "creating threads of logical reasoning that confound his or her opponent" >>So now the threads of logical reasoning are part of the debate, which is understood by the debater who does not understand the other points in the debate. Thus the debater is still understanding the part of the debate that is making him/her win. "or other means of debating the topic without staying focused on points that require a perception of the significance, explanation, or cause of the topic." >>Great. This is still going to require an understanding of these other points which the moment they are mentioned become part of the debate. Thus the person is still going to have some understanding of the debate. Keep in mind my opponent has to prove no understanding under this resolution. And once again in all three of these the debater is going to have to understand the words. Withstood pain to create many weapons. H5: "He or she may not even bother to utilize his or her understanding at all" Thus in this scenario the debater that doesn't bother using his or her understanding at all is the equivalent of a debater with no understanding. Furthermore the debater who understands and loses to the debater who does not understand is not debating well as this would be the opposite of our definition. Therefor beating the debater that is not debating well does not prove one is debating well. Furthermore the debater is still going to have to at the very least understand the words of the resolution otherwise that debater will be debating outside of it and will not be debating it at all. Furthermore the actual words the debater is saying in round, the actual debate, will have to be understood. H6: I disagree with my opponents definition. Under it anything could be classified as arguing. For instance providing a computer was using a "heated" voice it could be arguing, in other words it is possible to argue with inanimate objects under my opponents definition. In this scenario all the person is doing is serving as a medium through which the other person is debating. Furthermore the person serving as the medium is still going to have to at the very least understand how to pronounce the words, if not he words themselves. Waiting for one's arrival. It should be noted that my opponent most likely wants me to win this debate. H7: Arguing using information from a source is still going to require the reading comprehension of the source, in other words an understanding of those words. Furthermore one is going to need to understand what the debate is about textually in order to research it. Finally if you do research you are going to inevitably gain some small amount of understanding. ================ Analysis: ================ In my last round I pointed out: "you must first understand the words or at least some of the words used in the resolution." My opponent in this round completely ignores this point and instead offers 5 new hypotheticals. Let me offer a small analogy.... If we consider that this situation in itself was a small resolution, something like: Topic: Jesus vs. Dogs who will win? PRO=Jesus Neg=Dogs" Pro: Here are reasons why Jesus is good in a fight Con: Here are reasons why cats are good in a fight, and would in fact win against Jesus Clearly, Pro is the only one who has supported his side of the resolution. Con was supposed to argue that Dogs would beat Jesus, but he argued that Cats would instead. The same is true in our current case. I offered a substantial reason why understanding will always be required yet my opponent's 5 counter reasons have absolutely nothing to do with my reason. Thus my reasoning still stands rather firm and disallows a win for him. I believe that will be enough. Eat your MUDKIPZ!