You should not be given points for using sources on DDO
|Voting Style:||Open with Elo Restrictions||Point System:||Select Winner|
|Updated:||1 year ago||Status:||Post Voting Period|
|Viewed:||628 times||Debate No:||78761|
Round 1 - Con may start his / her debate
Round 2 - Main points and justifications
Round 3 - Rebuttals
Round 4 - Conclusion (con must leave this space blank - ie. forfeiture)
- No trolling
- No forfeiture
- Con must follow the debate structure
All other basic, self explanatory rules apply (e.g no swearing).
I would like to wish con the best of luck in advance and I look forward to an interesting debate.
Thank you to my opponent for hosting this debate. I hope that this will be an interesting discussion.
As Con, I will be arguing that points SHOULD be awarded for sources. I agree to all of Pro's rules and will complete the debate following said rules.
There are some scenarios that I can think of where awarding sources is useful:
1. One person's sources are counterproductive or is just used to fill up space, and even contradicting their own argument
2. One person's sources are superior to another's
3. One person's sources are full of bias
4. One person completely forgets sources in an argument where sources are necessary
I intend to break down each one of these scenarios and tell my opponent why a person should (or shouldn't) be awarded source points with the arguments above. Throughout these arguments I will use two people as examples: Bob and Jim (such originality, I know, but that's beside the point).
1. One person's sources is counterproductive or is just used to fill up space, and even contradicting their own argument
This is fairly obvious. If Bob bases his entire argument on faulty sources or sources that contradict his side to some extent, and Jim provides sources that support his side, points should obviously be awarded to Jim. If a majority of Bob's sources are just "filler" or provide nothing of importance to the topic, and Jim's have relevance to them, points should be awared to Jim. It doesn't make sense that, even though Bob had completely faulty sources and Jim didn't that Jim shouldn't be awared points. It's "quality control", if you will, and Bob obviously didn't find the necessary sources needed nor put in the effort to read and find good sources. Thus, Jim should get the points here.
2. One person's sources are superior to another's
Again, this is fairly obvious and even ties in to my previous point a bit. In this scenario, Bob only provides adequate sources that don't back up his side too much, yet Jim provides sources that provides lots of information and completely back up his side of the argument, points should be awared to Jim. Bob, again, didn't have the effort to find quality sources, and Jim did. Jim should be awared for his effort and dedication to the debate.
3. One person's sources are full of bias
Bias obviously skews one's viewpoint as well as the data of one's sources. A good result, despite being part of a comedy ruitine, was ComedyCentral's "If Google Was a Guy", where one woman states that "Vaccines cause autism". Google then proceeds to state that there are "one million results that say they don't, and one result that says they do", and the woman grabs the one and says "I knew it." In a similar way, if Bob provides a cite as his source that has obvious bias, then all of his sources must be taken into question, and if Tim's have no bias, Tim should get source points.
4. One person completely forgets sources in an argument where sources are necessary
Most importantly, claims without anything to back them up.
Bob claims that 56% of people prefer Dove over Head and Shoulder, and seeing as it's more popular it must be better. Apart from being a logical fallacy, Bob didn't cite this claim. Tim questions this and asks Bob where he got it from, and Bob simply replies "the Internet". No matter how right Bob may be, he should lose source points as he had elements in his argument that required sources, but Bob did not provide them.
These are four reasons alone why sources should award points.
I await Pro's arguments.
1.) If a person has a degree in theology does this person really need to list sources. Surely the information that they have learnt is better than picking out information from the internet just for the sources point.
2.) Some debates are based on opinion (ie. red is better than yellow) someone may decide to define the terms and list the link to the page just for the sources point. Since their opponent cannot find any sources that give any relevant evidence to back up his case he does not have a source.
3.) If the debate falls under a certain category (ie. philosophy) it is down to the debater to prove that x is more moral than y (for example) there is no need for sources in this situation.
4.) Sometimes the limitation of characters can stop there being enough room for sources to be provided. This results in either a lack of sources or the debater being forced to shorten their argument.
5.) Although sources can be extremely important in certain debates. I believe that the voting system should be based on criteria that should be met for all debates. The term 'sources' can only be used as criteria for specific debates.
6.) Sometimes people are pressured into thinking that they have to use sources in a debate and their debate falls apart when they try to use other peoples arguments just for points.
Again, looking at your example this is specific to certain debates. Lets say that Pro has a degree in philosophy and hasn't used any sources - just his brain. Con uses Wikipedia. He will still receive the sources point since no sources have been provided for Pro. Con's information could be completely wrong but voters feel that there is no need to check how truthful the source really is. It appears clear that Con has used better sources. There is no greater source than the brain. Elaborating on your example. Voters often don't check the content of the source. They judge it by quantity or by their own bias.
Regarding your 3rd point claiming that certain sources are full of bias. Bias does not necessarily mean that the source is wrong or bad. Bias sources sometimes provide good reasons to be bias. Some sources can see both sides of the argument but if you are going to write a page of information on a topic you usually have an opinion on it.
Your paragraph about sources being necessary in certain debates (4) is true in some cases. However, as I mentioned earlier. Debate criteria should consist of things that are required in all debates. Of course your example makes sense and as I spoke about in the first round - I am not against the idea of using sources. I just feel that points should not be awarded for this.
I will now provide an alternative solution to using sources. Since the topic of a more 'convincing argument' meets the criteria for all debates I suggest that instead of using sources as a voting option, if sources are necessary and are not provided then you should take this into account when voting for a more 'convincing argument'. Surely if Pro provides statistics without sources and Con does then it makes con's argument more convincing. Sources effect how convincing an argument is and as a result the two headings (sources and more convincing argument) should be linked in as one topic - keeping the heading more convincing argument since sources is only a small part of what makes up a convincing argument. Sources are important but they do not necessarily need to come under their own heading.
I await Con's case.
I have used a source because as I have said I am not against sources I just cite them when I have to.
Thanks to my opponent for their arguments. I'd like to state a few things:
When I listed my four reasons why sources can be useful, Pro responds by listing six, making his seem more viable by the sheer number of alternatives he has.
However, looking over opponent's arguments, I'm noticing a trend. Opponent chooses scenarios where it is not necessary to use sources, but sources CAN be used.
See: 1, 2, 3
Just because you can get by without sources being used doesn't mean they aren't important in these topics.
Scenario 1: This is just false. No matter how smart the person debating the topic may be, they MUST have sources to back up their claims where sources are necessary. The judges have no indication that this person knows everything. Sources are always good here, and not citing anything appears as a lack of care to the debate. Those with a brain like that know full well how important sources are, so leaving them out isn't valid here.
Scenario 2: In some instances only the definitions will be listed and no source point should be awared for that. But in a debate such as the PS4 being better than the Xbox One, which appart from its specs has a lot of opinion around it, will need sources to back up the specs. "Red is better than yellow" may even have some sources with it, depending on how deep the debate between red vs. yellow actually is.
Scenario 3: Accepted. Though sources may still be used here depending on what the philosophy is on. But I should point out your example is a fallacy. "X is moral than Y" can't possibly be debated as moral is subjective. For example, it may be wrong to you but I find it completely fine. So this type of argument isn't really valid.
The other ones are easily solved:
See: 4 & 5
Scenario 4: tinyurl or bit.ly. If a person was truly invested in a debate and wanted to make theirs good, they would have known they needed room for sources. A lack of is just careless on the debater's half. It's a very poor excuse for no sources.
Scenario 5: Just leave this blank for debates that don't need it. Sources can also be left blank if both parties provides sources adequate enough to support their argument.
Also, I'd like to note this comment:
"Although sources can be extremely important in certain debates..."
If sources are unimportant in certain debates, just leave sources blank. Opponent has listed some reasons why sources should not be used in a debate, however in a professional, formal debate, sources are an absolute NECESSITY. Opponent himself states that sources are very important. When talking about statistics, any sort of article, or the like, sources should always be used. DDO has many informal debates but also its fair share of normal ones. Why should sources be removed due to some informal ones or ones with philosophy and punish those who need sources?
Pro also provides a solution to the sources issue, but there's a much simpler option: leave sources points blank. Don't award any. That's better than removing the system entirely.
Scenario 6: This is a very rare scenario, and it's common knowledge you shouldn't focus too much on sources, rather the whole of your argument. If a person becomes overwhelmed with sources and focuses on them more than the argument, not to offend anyone who would do that, but it's poor priority management and that person deserves to lose just by not putting full attention to the debate.
Now to respond to qualms about my arguments.
Voter Integrity: This is why the "Judges" system is in place, or even the ELO limit. If you don't trust random members of DDO to adequately vote on your debate, elect fair judges, or only allow members that have experienced their fair share of debates to vote. Of course this can be abused by the instigator choosing bias judges. But if we were focusing on pure debate quality, quality judges must be important as well.
"Bias does not necessarily mean that the source is wrong or bad." Not necessarily, you are correct. But I was referring to the bias that intentionally skews data and results to fit a certain party's desires, even if the end result of the data is false.
Overall, Pro is stating that source points should be removed entirely because of a few debate scenarios, most of which I've covered. Should all source points be removed for only a few kinds of debates that most of the time are informal, such as opinion debates? It doesn't make sense and that ideology is flawed on Pro's behalf. It's similar to teachers punishing the entire class for one or two students' mistakes. It's unjust to those who actually did behave (and in this case, unjust to those who put in the time for sources). If in doubt, LEAVE SOURCES BLANK. It's much simpler and much more effective than removing source points. Tying in sources to "better argument" would just make it extremely similar to the already intact "select winner" style of voting, but with grammar/conduct attached as well.
Also, if one person has a better argument around their sources but their sources show bias, who would get the point?
Point being (no pun intended), the 7 point system is fine as is. It doesn't need tweaking, especially for sources. There are many instances where sources are useful and leaving them out hurts your debate. If sources aren't necessary, the sources point can just be left blank and it doesn't need to be acounted for. However, for some other debates that require statistics and other analytical information, or just an important need for sources, that's why the sources point is awarded and present, even for debates that don't need them.
I await Pro's response.
Before I begin I would like to mention that my opponent has broken the rules of this debate and therefore all points should be awarded to be. Rebuttals should have been in this round. Not the previous round. That round was for your main points and justifications. If you did this in round one then you should have read over the debate structure because the first round was for you to begin your argument - not completely say all of your main points.
I will still continue this debate due to the fact that I don’t want to end this debate too early. However voters should consider this whilst voting.
Scenario 1: I think there may be a misunderstanding here. I didn't just mean that they wouldn't use asources. I meant that they would use sources that may not be as reliable as there opponents. They may use these sources to shouw what they are talking about and since the source(s) are true they have no need to find a more reliable source (they know thtat the source is true because it falls in line with their knowledge of the topic).
Scenario 2: The key word you used is 'may'. You said "'Red is better than yellow" may even have some sources with it, depending on how depp the debate between red vs. yellow actually is.' As I have had to mention many times. The debate criteria should cover something that has to be used in all debates. By saying that you may need to use sources in a certain debate you are technically conceding and agreeing with my point.
Scenario 3: This has been accepted by my opponent.
Scenario 4: Not everyone knows about tinyurl. On a person's first few debates they might not know that they need sources. You have said: "A lack of is just careless on the debate's half." No, it's not actually. When you are debating a topic it is always better to make your argument as convincnig as possible. This is a point agreed with by many due to the fact that you receive more points for a convincing argument than points for sources. The more content. The better the debate (as long as you have a good quality debate too). It's not a poor excuse if you ask me.
Scenario 5: My argument has been misunderstood again by my opponent. I'll put this simply. If a debate doesn't need sources one debater could just type in the debate topic into google and copy and paste the URL into DDO. Since their opponent has not used any sources they will receive the points for sources. Voters will see no reason to why one debater should not receive the source point since one of them didn't use any. You have not come up with a rebuttal for why sources should bcome under the title: "Conving argument".
In response to your comment regarding my comment. My opponent has conceded again by saying that "if sources are unimportant in certain debates, just leave sources blank." My opponent assumes that both parties will agree to leave sources blank. As I have said in my previous rebuttals. One party - either Pro or Con may use a random source (relating to the topic just for the sources point). Even if they don't use it. The other party has failed to provide a source and because of this the party using the source(s) will win the points for sources. Whilst what my opponent states about sources being neccessary in a professional, formal debate is true. Not all debates on debate.org are formal and professional. Many relate to games, fun topics and films. I did state that sources are very important and I never said they weren't. I said that in certain debates sources are important but criteria for a debate must apply to all debates. I can understand things like: More convincing argument; conduct and spelling and grammar - but sources. Are sources really necessary in all debates? I did not say that sources should be removed and not considered. I said that they should removed and should be considered when voting on whether or not the argument by one party is convincing or not.
Leaving the sources point blank doesn't always work though. As I have had to mention many times in this round. Some people use sources just for the sources point. Not all voters look at each individual source to check its reliability. If Pro uses sources and Con doesn't then surely Pro should get the sources point. Do you notice the issue with this system?
Scenario 6: This scenario is more common than you think. Debaters who have been on this site for a while know very well that if they do not include enough sources that are reliable then they will lose points that could cost them the entire debate! I did not suggest that they are completely overwhelmed with sources I merely stated that many people shorten their arguments in an attempt to keep their convining argument points but to also gain more points via sources. It isn't poor priority management - they are trying to desperately use sources because without them they risk losing a debate that they could potentially lose without extra points.
Voter Integrity: My opponent has helped my argument and conceded again by proving a solution to sources. I would like to remind my opponent that they are trying to say that sources should be kept. Surely if someone provides an alternative to something they must be against it in some way. Judge voting has nothing to do with sources. You cannot tell if a judge is bias and if the same incident occurs where one debater uses a random source and the other uses no sources then judges may fail to spot this error and award points to them.
Even if you were refering to those sources - you can not always be certain if a source has altered data. You may believe that the data has been altered because another site provides you different data however this just means that one of the sources is wrong - it could be their source that is wrong.
I haven't suggested that we competely abolish sources. As I have mentioned previously - we should keep considering sources when voting but I don't believe that sources are important enough in all debates for them to have their own title and category. I have already responded to the leave sources blank point so I wont do it again. My opponent has given me a scenario which doesn't really support their argument in any way. Not everyone would notice the sources bias. Sometimes multiple sources are used and so checking every source may not sound appealing to regular voters.
The sources point shouldn't be included because it doesn't need to have its own heading to take a role in all debates. It can be considered when voting if it needs to be considered. If it isn't neccessary in a debate then you shouldn't consider the sources. When there is a heading for something that you are judging someone on - then you are tempted to find a winner. When searching if you find that only one person has used sources and the other happened there appears to be a clear winner. Sometimes if one person uses 2 sources and another uses 5, then the person with 5 will receive the sources point (even if the sources were unreliable and false).
Due to the fact that my opponent has broken the rules of this debate (as stated at the top of this debate) all 7 points should go to me.
I await my opponents response - if they are still willing to debate this.
Pro seems to forget that he has not followed his own debate structure, as he rebutted to my arguments in round 2 as well. If I had followed his debate structure I would've been a whole round behind.
It should've gone something like this:
R1: I start, which really means I put my main points and justifications. If I "begin my argument", isn't that what I'm doing?
If I had followed debate structure by doing my rebuttals in round 3, I would be one whole round behind, giving my opponent an unfair advantage. I think in this scenario I shouldn't be penalized for this. However, because Pro responded to what was supposed to be my opening argument, apparently, in round 2, when it was supposed to be just main points and justifications, then goes on to say I broke the rules, but he was completely fine makes no sense on Pro's behalf. I do not ask the voters to penalize Pro. I ask the voters note the fault of both parties and keep it in mind whilst voting.
Also, I find it extremely important that Pro has dropped ALL FOUR of my reasons presented in Round 1. He does address these in Round 2, but I respond to them, and he does not pursue them further.
Now, to the conclusion. Keep in mind, as this is a conclusion, I will not rebut to anything else opponent has said (even though I'm tempted to), rather I will look at his arguments, evaluate them, and then make a conclusion based off of this.
I should state to everyone what my opponent seems to be arguing for vs what I am arguing for. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm 99% sure I'm not:
Opponent: You should not be given points for sources because sources are not relevant to every argument. They are important, but they should be banded together with "more convincing arguments."
Me: Sources are not used in every argument, but they are vital enough to be a separate section apart from arguments. They should still count as their own separate point.
Just because sources are not used in all debates does NOT mean that they are not important enough to warrant their own point. Tying them into arguments would leave too many points into one category, and, as I said before, be extremely similar to the already existing “Select Winner” system. The reason the two styles exist is for a variety of voting choices, one is for the overall content of the debate, and the other is for separate factors that tie into why a person won. Also, they do nothing to serve for a more “convincing argument”, so that argument falls flat.
Another thing that I don’t like about my opponent’s arguments is his constant belittling of voters’ ability, even going as far to say that I “concede” by presenting the idea of judges, which help for more fair voting when it comes to all topics. He constantly states how voters will vote for one person because they provide one source such as a definition and the other doesn’t, and the like. As I’ve stated in my R2, if you do not trust random people with little or no debate experience to adequately vote on a debate, set an ELO limit. I don’t understand how this is a concession because it doesn’t provide a solution to Pro’s issue. It just makes it so that you will receive quality votes and voters will truly understand how little significance a definition source really is. Also, they are far more likely to look at and weigh sources, which is really what we’re discussing right now.
Opponent commonly addresses the idea of “If one person provides more sources, they win source points” which is false if both parties provide sources of quality value. It’s not about the quantity of the sources, it’s more so the quality that awards. If someone provides 5 quality sources VS someone provides two, sources will be left blank as both parties have provided quality sources. In the debates I’ve seen and been in, if both parties use sources then sources is often left in the middle.
Then opponent will continue to ask “what if one person uses a source and another doesn’t?” If it’s just a definition or some term, it is not enough to warrant source points alone. However, in a debate that would require sources, one person cites one valid source (apart from a definition or term) and the other doesn’t, points SHOULD go to the first person.
I have presented valid reasons why source points should still be awarded separately and not bound together another category. Ultimately, my opponent’s goal was to show that source points should not be used in the 7 point system. Sources are not used in all debates, and this is ultimately what opponent is attacking to prove his point. I feel that despite this, sources are important enough to warrant their own category, as in the debates they ARE in, they’re so important that it doesn’t make sense to get rid of them entirely. While philosophy and opinion debates may not have sources, just because of some debates the source points should not be removed. If it’s a matter of voter integrity, as I stated before, raise the ELO limit if you care too much about this. Notice that this is overall an opinion argument, yet you have cited sources. More debates use sources than you probably like to believe as they are necessary extensions of our original arguments as well as the backbone behind others. Binding them in with “Quality arguments” would leave 5 points toward one topic alone, which would then render the question “Why do both the 7 point and select winner systems exist?” 7 point offers more variety in voting while “select winner” offers more of what opponent seems to be heading towards. It’s an already intact system opponent can simply utilize, and if you dissect opponent’s argument, there isn’t really much he’s going on. His two main reasons of voter integrity and not all debates using them can easily be solved easily: first by the higher ELO limits and the “select winner” system, and the latter with leaving source points blank. There is no need to reform the system. It is not perfect already due to the naturally subjective nature of voters, but putting up ELO limits is the closest you can get to fairness, and fairness is what opponent is seeking.
I thank opponent for his time and this debate.
If my opponent read my argument and understood it properly he/she would have noticed that the reason that the reason that I made rubuttals was because it would have been unfair on me if you used rebuttals and I didn't. Since you failed to follow the debate structure you had already lost. IN order to continue the debate fairly I followe the structure that you chose. My opponent has also provided an alternative debate structure although it is unacceptable to suggest a new debate structure in the closing rounds of a debate and expect that it is alright to follow by this structure.
My opponent claims that they would have been a whole round behind if the rebuttals had been done in round 3 however the rebuttals made by me in round 2 were in response to the argument posed in round 1 by my opponent. I did not have an argument in round 1. If I did pose an argument in round one then it would have been acceptable for rebuttals by my opponent but since my opponent started with an extra round it is only fair that I get to refute it. If I did not then the round allocated to rebuttals would have been increasingly complex since I would have to refute both arguments from round 1 and round 2 in that round.
Opponent: Sources are not used in every argument, but they are vital enough to be a separate section apart from arguments. They should still count as their own separate point.
"Just because sources are not used in all debates does NOT mean that they are not important enough to warrant their own point. Tying them into arguments would leave too many points into one category, and, as I said before, be extremely similar to the already existing “Select Winner” system. The reason the two styles exist is for a variety of voting choices, one is for the overall content of the debate, and the other is for separate factors that tie into why a person won. Also, they do nothing to serve for a more “convincing argument”, so that argument falls flat."
1) I never said that they aren't important - I merely pointed out that they do not need to have points for the usage of them. Of course if they are completely neccessary and they are not used then the argument is clearly not a very convincing one - and therefore they should not be awarded the convincing argument point.
2) There wouldn't be too many points into one more category because I never suggested that we add the sources points onto the arguments points - I just stated that when voting on convincing argument sources should be considered. 3 points would still be awarded for convincing argument it would be harder to receive convincing argument points simply because voters will be looking for sources as well as good arguments (in certain debates).
"Another thing that I don’t like about my opponent’s arguments is his constant belittling of voters’ ability, even going as far to say that I “concede” by presenting the idea of judges, which help for more fair voting when it comes to all topics. He constantly states how voters will vote for one person because they provide one source such as a definition and the other doesn’t, and the like. As I’ve stated in my R2, if you do not trust random people with little or no debate experience to adequately vote on a debate, set an ELO limit. I don’t understand how this is a concession because it doesn’t provide a solution to Pro’s issue. It just makes it so that you will receive quality votes and voters will truly understand how little significance a definition source really is. Also, they are far more likely to look at and weigh sources, which is really what we’re discussing right now."
1) Your role in this debate is to prove that sources points should be kept when voting. Providing a solution to it indicates that you have run out of arguments and are relying on alternatives to keep your argument looking longer and looking like you have more points to offer.
2) Not everyone can find willing judges to vote on their debates. It is difficult to find a sufficient amount of voters who will vote without bias on your debates. On certain topics it is unclear what the judges opinions on the topic are and therefore it is difficult to work out who to pick to judge your debates.
3) You have attempted to provide an alternative (which is not your role in this debate) and even after you hae done this you have still failed to provide me with any convincing reasons to why sources should be kept as part of the voting criteria on debate.org.
"Opponent commonly addresses the idea of “If one person provides more sources, they win source points” which is false if both parties provide sources of quality value. It’s not about the quantity of the sources, it’s more so the quality that awards. If someone provides 5 quality sources VS someone provides two, sources will be left blank as both parties have provided quality sources. In the debates I’ve seen and been in, if both parties use sources then sources is often left in the middle."
1) Whilst it is true that more experienced debaters and voters check the reliability of sources the average voter does not bother to check every source to check its individual reliability.
"Then opponent will continue to ask “what if one person uses a source and another doesn’t?” If it’s just a definition or some term, it is not enough to warrant source points alone. However, in a debate that would require sources, one person cites one valid source (apart from a definition or term) and the other doesn’t, points SHOULD go to the first person."
1) This is your opinion and this is how you would vote - however, not everyone believes what you do. Some people (when voting) will look at the voting criteria - see the sources points - look at the debate argument - see that only one debater has used sources and immediately choose the debater who used sources. This applies to the average voter on debate.org.
Avoiding my opponents concession and failure to abide by the rules of this debate I have still won.
Conduct - Tied
Arument - Me
Spelling and Grammar - Me
Sources - Tied
Aruments should go to me since the only valid things that my opponent has stated are alternatives. My opponent has also failed to provide any reason to why sources shouldn't just be considered as part of the more convincing argument section other than an opinion ("valid enough").
Spelling and grammar should go to me since my opponent has included full capitalizations of words.
e.g but sources CAN be used.
My opponent has also made spelling mistakes.
e.g In some instances only the definitions will be listed and no source point should be awared for that.
I think that in the second example my opponent meant to say awarded but there may have been a little spelling mistake or a typo.
Overall, for these reasons and mroe I believe that I have won this debate and I hope that the voters agree with my reasons and vote Pro!
My opponent must forfeit the next round - as explained in the first round.
As this is the end of the debate, I should post nothing this round.
But it should be noted that opponent justifies his R2 rebuttals of my R1 as "I broke the rules first" which is false. HE broke the rules first. Opponent seems to be doing nothing but finding everything wrong about my argument instead of noticing the flawed logic in his. I should note some other things:
I fully capitalize my words to emphasize them. This isn't a s/g issue.
Opponent makes spelling mistakes in R3 as well. "asources" and "shouw" to name two. Opponent also uses the incorrect form of "their", and states "I meant that they would use sources that may not be as reliable as there opponents." We both have had s/g issues. But what I can't stand is opponent's blind assumption that he is absolutely right and his arguments aren't flawed whatsoever.
He spends the last round trying to woo over the voters and continues to state about my rules of breaking the debate structure, when I have shown that had I followed opponent's structure I would've been behind a whole round, giving him an unfair advantage. As well, he searches out my argument for my flaws, and fails to acknowledge his.
Overall, this is a poor debate from both sides of the argument. This could've been done better by both parties. Conduct especially.
I've nothing else to say. Voters, take every round into consideration and vote as you will.
Thank you for the debate.