My opponent will not be able to win this debate
I believe my opponent will not win this debate. My opponent will argue that she or he will win this debate. Round one is for acceptance and con may not post new arguments within the last round. Forfeiture of even one round brings an auto-losing of all 7 points. Breakage of any rules results in a full 7-point forfeiture.
I accept this debate and the rules. In fact I demand you enforce those rules with your life.
Good. So far no one has broken the rules.
REASONS WHY MHYKIEL CANNOT WIN AGAINST ME
1. Mhykiel is very inexperienced, while I am very experienced.
2. I haven't even loss against another debater who is much better than Mhykiel
3. I use up my characters more efficiently than Mhykiel, showing more effort
4. I am serious about this debate and agree with it strongly
I want to thank my opponent for the witty challenge.
I will rebuttal my opponent's reasons in order.
R1 Beginner's Luck
I am new to the site. I'm likely to have beginner's luck in this debate there by securing a win. "As Paulo Coelho points out, Every search begins with beginner's luck. And every search ends with the victor's being severely tested."  This luck is not really anything supernatural. It can be described in terms of probability. A coin toss is a perfect example. My opponent and I have the same chance to win in this debate (ideally) 50/50. However, my opponent is at a disadvantage. He already has a long list of wins before this debate. Essentially my opponent is on the 10th flip of a sequence of 10 where he already has 9 heads. The resolution implies he is confident the last flip will be "heads" as well. It is more likely by probability that he will lose this debate. 
R2 Confirming R1
I agree with the facts as presented by my opponent. These facts only further support the conditions set by R1.
R3 Brevity is Efficiency
My opponent in round one clearly defines the rules in which I, the opponent, can only accept in round 1. His case is circular. In that he requires me only to accept and then uses this as proof of a deficiency on part. How is it a deficiency if it is more efficient.  I by definition accomplished the 1st round with less time and effort than my opponent did. On this point then I am of a higher quality debater than my opponent and should win.
R4 Relatively speaking I am stronger
I am more confident that I will win. I elude to this in the first round in win I ask my opponent to put his life on the line in defence of the rules. I'm asking for him to put forth a stake of immense value to equal my level of confidence. If my opponent was to ask for me to lay my life down on the outcome of this debate he would have exhibited a greater confidence than me if I had refused to do so. This simple was not the case. He states that being 33 I am likely to have a heart attack stunned by his amazing strength. On this point I have to clarify that I have nearly twice the living experience as my opponent. Meaning I have seem more things than him, and will be less shocked by the appearance or show of force. Lastly, I am a retired combat disabled veteran who served in the combat arms branches of the U.S. Army. Physically and mentally I have already been privy to extreme conditions. Conditions I imagine would make my opponent pee his pants and faint.
R5 Conduct is too be seen
This startling point comes right after he implies I am weak and will die from a heart attack. Clearly he is making judgements about me with out knowing about me. At this point we are probably tied.
Babies are cuter than puppies.
Obviously my opponent is at a strong disadvantage and his points successfully refuted.
Rebuttals to my opponent's arguments
1. "Beginner's luck"
You do not simply win a debate by luck. Debates require skill and knowledge. Thus, this argument is irrelevant.
2. "Brevity is Efficiency"
Only if you know how to speak a lot while speaking few words. You are not Eddie Murphy. You did not live on for one whole week while only being able to speak around one thousand words. You have not proven that you can be more efficient while using fewer words than me. Plus, it must be noted that the best debates on the site, whether it's most views, comments, or votes, all have loads and loads of characters. Take Mikal, for example. Let's put a few of his debates here: http://www.debate.org..., and http://www.debate.org.... All of these debates show Mikal winning, but he uses massive 8000 character arguments in all of them in order to ensure his victory. As you can see, while being brief might be efficient, it is usually better to use up all your characters in your argument.
3. "I am stronger"
First, off, elude is used wrongly. It means "to avoid or escape", as shown in http://dictionary.reference.com.... I'm pretty sure you meant allude. This shows your grammar misuse, and I have done nothing wrong grammatically, so I cannot use in S & G. Now, my opponent tries to argue he is much more confident than me. I have already demonstrated my confidency by starting this debate and purposefully setting it so that I would battle someone with a higher elo than me. If my opponent really is more confident, that is actually arrogancy, because I am already at the borderline between confidence and over-confidence. My opponent's over-confidency can lead to his downfall, because he would underestimate my limits, as he claims to have rebutted all my arguments in the first round, and he more than likely thinks he can rebut my arguments within this round.
4. "Conduct is too be seen"
It's "to be seen". Another spelling error. Clearly my opponent will lose in S & G.
"Babies are cuter than puppies."
Well, baby puppies are cuter than both of those combined together!!
Now, to bring in a new point in this debate: 5. I have more and better sources
My opponent has 3 sources. However, 2 are useless, since they are about luck and probability. As I have already stated, debates do not depend on luck but rather skill. Now he only has one relevant source. I have four relevant and helpful sources, clearly outnumbering my opponent's sources.
And to stress the weakness of being over-confident, my opponent was so confident he failed to rebut two arguments within my first round, showing concession. I will repost them here to stress them.
6. I haven't even loss against another debater who is much better than Mhykiel
In another debate presented here: http://www.debate.org......, it is shown I didn't lose against Teemo, who has a massive amount of 3,000 elo, an impressive feat for having only done 14 debates. Mhykiel only has a 2,115 elo, how could he possibly best me? (And I already refuted his "beginner's luck" argument, and thus this argument stands)
7. I am serious about this debate and agree with it strongly
I haven't lost any of my "school uniform" series of debates. It was because I was serious and agreed with it strongly that I gained victory over others.
Oh, and another point just to mess you up. :P
8. I have "fact-attacked" you
Using many strong arguments yet again, with rebuttals to your previous arguments, I have once again proven my skills to be better than yours, and thus, I will win against you in this debate.
R1.R3. Beginner's Luck
As I explained in my 2nd round rebuttal, Beginner's Luck is a not luck. It can be explained by that it is the convergence of 2 statistical problems. The Likely hood of my opponent getting 10 wins in a row is lower then the likely hood of me winning 5 out of 10 debates. 10 being the last nine debates and this one, either of us has done. No Luck involved just the way the statistical world works.
R2.R3 Confirming facts to R1
My opponent jumps to "brevity" in round 3. So he must agree with my rebuttal in round 2 of the points he presented in his point 2. That being that the evidence he provided only further established the conditions of the statistical argument put forth in Point 1.
R3.R3 "I am Stronger"
My opponent asserts that he is on the border between confidence and over-confidence. This is a "Pride cometh before the Fall" argument. Notice he never uses those words. He uses, "...and he more than likely thinks he can rebut my arguments within this round". Of Course I am confident of this. If I could not be confident of my ability to give a good debate than I really should not debate. This is like saying you can not be a loser if you never play the sport. This is true. A better way to say it is "No Risk No Reward". Showing the correct end states as they relate to playing the game. I am confident because as a competitor I have to think and act as if the win is possible. To not do so would be counter to my objective. I can not assume I will lose, win I am striving for a win. My opponent has just confirmed my level of confidence to be the norm for a proper competitor. But his actions in starting this debate shows he has more confidence than the norm. There by his own logic is over confident.
R4.R3 Conduct is to be seen
My opponent points out a spelling mistake. In round 3 his point 3, "First, off, elude is used wrongly. It means "toavoidorescape", as shown in http://dictionary.reference.com....... I'm pretty sure you meant allude. This shows your grammar misuse, and I have done nothing wrong grammatically, so I cannot use in S & G" I think my opponent meant to use lose. Certainly S & G is a bit closer than my opponent would have the reader believe.
More to the point my opponent offers no arguments to conduct. Or refutes that my rebuttal was on conduct is to be seen. My opponent further goes off point with a "baby puppy" What is a baby puppy? A puppy is a baby dog so a "baby puppy" is a baby baby dog! That makes no sense. Though cute if my opponent wanted to combine baby and puppy it would be this...which is much cuter than one puppy.
R5.R3 Better sources
My opponent calls 2 of my sources useless because they are on statistical probabilities. He is asking the reader to disregard the evidence I presented, not on the fallacy or lack of reasoning they may contain, but on his opinion. I ask the readers to check out the sources and make their own call on how relevant they are to this debate .
R6.R3 Haven't even loss...
I urge the readers to check out the kind of debates that Teemo has won. Regardless if my opponent has defeated Teemo, it has no bearing on this debater and debate.
So do I, we agree on this point.
R8.R8 Fact Attack
Well let's talk about the facts. I am Con to the resolution, "My opponent will not be able to win this debate". Another way of saying this is "I am able to win this debate." My opponent has been arguing that he has a better chance to win. Yet he never defines "able". Able is the opportunity to do something. If I obey the rules I agreed upon then I certainly have the opportunity to win. This goes to directly confirm my position on the resolution.
1. beginner's luck
Incorrect. If I was an awesome debater who tried his hardest on every single debate and only challenged noobies, the noobies will still have a lower chance of winning 1/10 debates rather than my wins on 10/10 debates, if I had incredibly strong arguments and scared all the noobs into forfeiting.
2. Brevity is efficiency
My opponent has failed to prove someone can win by presenting fewer characters than his opponent.
3. I am stronger
I am more confident than the average person. That does not mean I am over-confident. Had I been over-confident I would not have forgiven you in the first round for demanding something from me.
4. Conduct is to be seen
Oh snap! Things just got real. Well, cuteness can never beat smartness. After all, there's a reason Albert Einstien is admired upon his ingenuity rather than his beauty! And plus, smartness can confuse my opponent, making him unable to rebut against my argument. Thus, I will state that because no one has ever been so far as been decided to use even go want to do more like, my opponent will not win.
5. Better sources
Now that you have presented the oxford Dictionary, and if you combine that with your original sources, you have more sources. However, if the statistical argument does not work, you are still two sources behind me.
6. Defeated Teemo
Teemo has a massive 3,000 elo. My opponent only has 2100 something. Go figure.
7. My opponent thinks he has the opportunity to win
Opportunity is defined as "a good position, chance, or prospect, as for advancement or success." by http://dictionary.reference.com.... Because of my shots of arguments and rebuttals, I believe my opponent doesn't have a good position or chance to win. I am the stronger debate, with more effort put into my arguments--more characters, and I am the one who posed the points, forcing my opponent to rebut. My opponent has in reality only made one argument, "beginner's luck", which I rebutted. He is rebutting all my other arguments without making his own, and because he is in such a defensive state, this shows he really is bluffing about his confidence, and without confidence, you lose!
Onto you, con!
I'm not saying skill in the debate is not a factor. I'm stating the case that the odds are in my favor. My opponent through skill will have to surmount these odds.
My opponent began with the assertion that more characters is a factor to winning. Efficiency can be a deciding factor between 2 processes. In general people will agree that if a process or product is more efficient it is better.
R3.R4 I am Stronger
Reread my initial post. I did not make an outrageous demand. I simply asked you live by the rules you established. To live other wise would be my opponent saying, "Do as I say, not as I do" Which I thin would make for an unfair debate.
R4.R4 Conduct is to be seen
My opponent conceded baby and puppy are cuter than his additions. Then changes his argument to one of smartness. Smartness is also defined as impertinent, insolent. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Is my opponent confirming is confirming his conduct is of sore repute.
R5.R4 Better sources
Whether or not the statistical argument is a valid argument to the resolution is irrelevant to the case of sources. I have offered sources to establish the premises put forth in that argument. If the voters elect that the conclusion drawn from the statistical argument is not convincing enough to infer the resolution, the sources still count.
R6.R4 Defeated Teemo
Could that be because my debates are not so trivial as Unicorn vs Pegasi, or in 2 cases the debate was similar essay writing debates like http://www.thefreedictionary.com.... No doubt Teemo is an effective debater. But that would be talking about Teemo I still fail to see how that assigns different values of ability between you and I in this debate.
R7.R4 I do have the opportunity to win
My opponent asserts, "I believe my opponent doesn't have a good position or chance to win." My position is equally in opposition to yours and valid in this debate. You are correlating my stance on the resolution to a disadvantage. This simply is not the case. Winning the debate is, as you said based on skill, and as I said some on chance. No where in that does it imply the starting points are already uneven. I start at one side of the field you on the other.
Now, As far as chance goes you are using the very argument I posted in Round 2. You have attempted to negate this as having an impact and yet here you are asserting it's pertinence? You have made no arguments to define that the chances are different than I have presented. But here you are saying the chances are in your favor. Could you support this claim with sources and fact please.
If he reads that sentence above incorrectly, he would mess up, as I imabench did in his expert tier's finale by misreading. that's right, everyone, my opponent can still make arguments, however, he cannot state that he was very meticulous and read everything carefully, thus, he cannot make an error. Why? That is a new point, and mentioning it would make you lose this debate. BWAHAHA!
Now, to the rebuttals.
Well I certainly have the skill to surmount the dumb beginner's luck thing.
Your definition of smartness was not the real definition, it was a false definition. Smart really means clever and ingenuity, as well as my understanding of my topic. Because of my understanding, I will win this debate.
As for me having no sources to prove that I will win this debate, well, I have proved my smartness. Plus, you made tons and tons of errors in the last round. No way you can win in S and G!
In conclusion I will win this debate.
I thank my opponent for an honorable fight.
I extend my previous arguments.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|