I'm on trial/what is the problem you see with me?

• There's no statement of fact, value, or policy for CON to contest here.
  
• CON suggests we reframe the topic to something like:
  
• AS DEMONSTRATED by this DEBATE,  MALL's DEBATE TECHNIQUE is CONSISTENT with MALL's RATING/WIN PERCENTAGE
  

• CON is the instigator of this debate as well as the maker of extraordinary claims
  
• CON bears the burden of proof in this debate, to the extent that CON proves willing to make a provable claim.
  
• PRO interprets CON's resolution to mean that CON wants to draw attention to his unpersuasive debating technique.  So long as PRO agrees with CON that CON's technique is rather problematic, PRO wins this debate.
  

• Generally speaking, there are three flavors of debatable topics:
  
• RESOLVED: X fact is true/false
  
• RESOLVED: X Govt should implement Y policy
  
• THBT: Values statements - right or wrong, good or bad, etc.
  
• But Mall's topics frequently elude or dilute any debatable point.
  

• PRO finds no examples of Mall sourcing an argument in spite of that requirement representing about 29% of points awarded.
  

• PRO and CON seems to agree that CON's debate style is problematic at least to the extent that CON is now inviting critique.  If we agree that CON's low energy instigations with no affirmative arguments or sourcing and little direct engagement generally deserve to be voted as loses against any concerted effort by any opponent, then we agree that Mall's 15% win rate accurately reflects degree of success on this debating site.
  
• PRO looks forward to CON's R2

• PRO will treat this as a DROPPED argument.
  

• "It's incredibly hard to debate someone when they have a different idea of what the topic means than you do. If you're not the first speaker in the debate, then you should use this slot to either agree with or contend the definition that your opponent gave. If they didn't give a definition, feel free to provide your own as if you were the first speaker." (emphasis PRO's)
  
• By failing in his responsibilities as debate instigator, Mall consistently hands his opponent the essential advantage of defining terms.
  

• No two people share the same understanding of every word.  We define words salient to topic and argument to explain our understanding and so invite agreement or disagreement to focus meaning and intent.
  

• False.  She who sets and successfully defends her terms typically has the advantage, the "high ground" if you will.  The best defense is to root your terms in ordinary, popular sources.  Terms or definitions in the debate description that are obviously false or deceptive are vulnerable to challenge and defeat.
  

• CON argues that such definition is fundamental to all debate going back to Aristotle.  Here's a passage from Musgrave's 1957 textbook: "Competitive Debate: Rules and Techniques", preceding the website by 60 years.
  

• "The affirmative has the right to make any reasonable definition of each of the terms of the proposition. If the negative challenges the reasonableness of a definition by the affirmative, the judge must accept the definition of the team that shows better grounds for its interpretation of the term."
  
• In the cart before horse metaphor, it is CON who doesn't seem to understand the traditional, functional precedent when setting terms.
  

• CON is now arguing that if an opponent doesn't agree with the instigator's terms at outset, then a challenger should not accept.
  
• CON has demonstrated a manifest ignorance of the purpose, structure, tradition and even meaning of debate.

• Fine.  Voters will have to decide whether CON's word alone is always sufficient evidence to support every claim he makes in every debate.
  

• White supremacy can only be true if  every non-white is imprisoned.
• PRO looks forward to CON's R3
  

• A STANDARD as "a set of rules or requirements which are widely agreed upon"
  
• Since "my debate, my standards" connotes disinterest in wide agreement, PRO argues that CON's methodology doesn't really meet the definition of STANDARD.
  
• Nevertheless, CON is free to lay down any old blob of words CON cares to and call that blob his thesis, 
  
• PRO asserts that such an approach is less likely to impress VOTERs, who often expect adherence to debating norms.
  
• CON is likewise free to call traditional resolution norms "garbage,"
  
• But likewise, VOTERs aren't likely to be impressed.
  
• PRO has shown that CON's disinterest in community convention is problematic
  

• Let's agree that neither PRO nor CON has much insight into CON's true state of mind.
  
• PRO refers to CON's habit of dropping arguments by claiming incomprehension.
  
• Example:
  
• PRO:" if PRO instigated a topic titled "Poop" and CON accepted that debate only to forfeit all rounds, CON would call that a formal discussion"
  
• CON "This made about a bit a sense to me as a bird flying with no wings"
  
• CON doesn't explain what doesn't make sense, CON just says nonsense and moves on. 
  
• PRO calls that a tactic for dropping difficult arguments
  

• This was already answered in R2
  
• "The affirmative has the right to make any reasonable definition of each of the terms of the proposition. If the negative challenges the reasonableness of a definition by the affirmative, the judge must accept the definition of the team that shows better grounds for its interpretation of the term"
  

• PRO has already included one example where he just said go watch some documentary without providing a link
  

• All challengers have a reasonable expectation to read an affirmative argument in R1. 
  

• Non-sequitur.
  

• Well, then CON's opponent would be arguing against an entirely plagiarized argument.  CON's request and conduct in that debate were entirely inconsistent with good faith argument in any context.
  
• NO challenger can be expected to intuit that Mall's vague terms in description will also serve as R1
  
• PRO cites debate norms going back to the classical and CON mistakes such norms as a failure to adapt to his ultra-lazy format
  

• Exactly, CON lacks a basic understanding of what makes a good debate
  

If this is a problem, why don't you ask prior to accepting a debate what a particular word means?

• R3: The website software may not be smart enough to tell the difference between a round with an argument and one without but that doesn't mean that any statement at all counts against forfeit.  FORFEIT is defined as "to lose a contest, game, match, or other form of competition by voluntary withdrawal, by failing to attend or participate, or by violation of the rules," 
  
• CON dropped the argument
  

• R3: R2:  PRO has shown evidence that CON's descriptions are seldom lengthy or detailed. 
  
• CON drops the argument
  

• yeah
  
• CON dropped the argument
  

• Either way, shouting in all caps remains poor conduct
  
• Even this point, regarding which debater is more direct, CON astonishingly drops
  

Right on and is it true that the word"true" is spelled t-r-u-e? Where must I go to back up that claim to knowledge?

• A DICTIONARY is "a reference work with a list of words from one or more languages, normally ordered alphabetically, explaining each word's meaning, and sometimes containing information on its etymology, pronunciation, usage, translations, and other data"
  
• CON dropped the argument
  

• CON misses the point entirely.  Voters must decide if CON is also missing the point sincerely.
  
• Nobody is accusing CON of saying that White Supremacy does not exist (although that was the intended conclusion of CON's debate)
  
• PRO is pointing out that CON lied when he said 
  

• CON asked for an "example where I made a statement you thought I was lying about and a source was needed to prove I was telling the truth"
  
• PRO's gigantic, obvious, manifestly false lies about the definition of WHITE SUPREMACY make a perfect example of a statement where PRO thought CON was lying and desperately needed some source to show how CON's wildly wrong perspective was not mere whimsical racism but actually rooted in some sort of thought or observation  in need of correction
  
• Alas, the evident conclusion of PRO and VOTERs in that debate fell more on the "mere whimsical racism" side of things.
  

• CON offered no source for his objectively false definition of white supremacy
  
• CON dropped this argument
  

• CON seems unaware that the audience for this debate is our VOTERS. 
  
• Cicero addressed the Senate, not Caesar
  
• Douglas addressed the voters of Illinois, not Lincoln
  
• Kennedy addressed the moderators, not Nixon
  
• CON should make his appeal to VOTERs and not to PRO, nor expect direct address from me
  
• CON dropped the argument
  

• CON complains about PRO's direct engagement but CON essentially dropped every argument this round but one.
  
• PRO looks forward to CON's conclusion
  

• Hardly all problems are resolved by intensive questioning.
  
• Sometimes the mechanic simply points out that your car is on fire and the time for asking questions is done.
  
• Sometimes the doctor just notices that there's a javelin where your eye used to be and questions seem rather besides the point.