unfair advantage in debating

Apology: 1)My links did not work, I will repeat them in this round. 2)Sorry for lack of punctuation, I will try to do better. Rebuttal: I apologize if I was not clear enough, it seems my opponent did not understand my position, from the gross discrepancy between what I wrote and what he understood." 1)I did not say "all readers/voters". 2)I did not say, they "make up their minds once they read the contenders last word in the last round". 3)I did not say anything about skipping arguments, and going strait to the end. 4)As pointed out in #1 I did not use extreme language, such as, "all", or "always". What I did say was a much more modest: 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. 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. 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. My opponents first argument is that there are disadvantages in favor of the instigator. The advantages for instigator that he mentioned were the following: 1) The instigator can choose which side they want, weather pro or con. 2) They set the rules, voting time limit, maximum characters, etc. 3) They get to make their FIRST ARGUEMENT, then the contender is obligated to refute them and post a new argument for his/her own (considering the character limits). 4) The Instigators also sets up the debating structure, 5) They are the ones who define the terminology of words and are in charge of semantics, so the debate won't turn into a battle of terms which are useless. 6) As I said, they set the rules meaning they can say what can happen in the last round so no unfair happenings can occur (like new arguments, etc.). 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. 2)The statistics show a nearly 2:1 difference in the winning rates of contender to instigator. statistical rebuttal: My opponent claims that there are alternate reasons for the statistical difference. My response is 4 fold: 1) The size of the gap nearly 2:1 is too large to be attributed to these reasons alone. 2) As my opponent claimed before their are advantages to instigator, though I don't find those reasons to be so strong there they may be something, and there is another advantage that instigator had unlimited research time. The fact that despite all this there is still such a huge gap 65.4 : 34.6, indicates there is much in favor of contender. 3)Since I argued that it is reasonable that the last word has power, and the statistics indeed show that the one with the last word wins so much more often, It is probable that it (at least partially) contributes to this difference. 4) My case examples, which unfortunately did not work in the previous round and there for do not count. I will repeat them here now. Argument: cases: http://www.debate.org... I am focusing on the better argument section. note those who voted in my favor where 2 of the senior, well known and well respected debaters on ddo, cliff. stamp and Roy lathem. both of them voted in my favor and gave detailed reasons for doing so. Despite this I lost the debate bec. some kids couldn't keep the entirety of the debate in their mind and where swayed by "the last word". (http://www.debate.org... my opponent did not even debate much (instead just harped on definitions) then in the final round after which I could not respond, he won. http://www.debate.org... see comments after debate where it is clear the damage of not having last word. http://www.debate.org... Note in round 4 my entire last argument was completely dropped. Not a word. I pointed this out in the debate itself in round 5. yet none of the voters realized this glaring drop. The only plausible explanation is they forgot and were swayed by the power of "the last word". This combined with reason and statistics make up my argument.