Instigator / Pro

DART would improve if, outside of video debates, one round debates weren't allowed


All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
Sources points
Spelling and grammar points
Conduct points

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

More details
Publication date
Last update date
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
~ 80 / 5,000

Let's word this in a better way and see if someone can justify one round debates

Round 1
The Lincoln Douglass format is a highly accepted debate format that has been the standard for many standard tournaments, and even formal political debates in real life situations. Con must negate this standard of quality in order to prove that keeping one-round debates would not lower the quality of debates on the site. Indeed. With only one round, it seems to me that pro would lose almost guaranteed, as the opposite side can keep attacking and refute the entirety of the argument. There is a reason that the standard is that no new arguments should be made in the last round, since the main side cannot respond. However, con would still be allowed to refute, without a chance for pro to go over all the weaknesses of con's potential arguments. With only one round, pro would have to know the impossible and predict precisely what con would do in order to even have a chance. More rounds give a chance to cover all the grounds and arguments, and give a thorough analysis of the issue. As is, one round debates seem to discourage quality constructive and refutations. As such, DART would improve if one round debates were abolished.

I.a I will offer no substantive rebuttal until r2, except to note that Pro raises the LD Format of debate. I will note, simply, that DART makes no mention of the LD Format in its Help Center. Therefore, we should not presume to expect it is imposed in DART as a debate quality. Even if it is, let us note that the LD Format discusses both a debate round, and multiple debate rounds.[1]  I therefore refute the claim that I “must negate this standard of quality” because the “standard” defines the “quality” in one and multiple rounds, with my emphasis on “one.”
Argument: “Argue for you limitations… they’re yours”[2]
I.a The quote above is by author, Richard Bach. It scoffs at limitations, arguing that we each own the limitations we propose, thinking they only limit others while leaving ourselves unfettered. Not so; when we think to limit others, we invariably are trapped. Why limit the number of rounds in a debate to impose a lower or upper limit? To what purpose? A proposal to place limits on a number of rounds serves no purpose. If the Proponent believes a debate needs but one round, or ten, so be it. The potential Contender then chooses to engage it, or not. Let that choice be the method of limitation, but imposing one serves no one and no purpose.

Round 2
Con says there is a need for one round debates, but has not negated the fact that pro would be unable to respond to any new arguments (and round 1 usually used for constructive arguments). This contradicts the nature of Round 1 and goes against the best debate structures agreed upon with years of experience and countless experimenting (why else would it be named after two famous people?) Consider this, if Lincoln went first and Douglass responded, but Lincoln could not respond in return, would he really want to have this discussion? Can it even be a discussion if he's not allowed to tell of Douglass's errors? Debate is about two opposite sides, but it seems remarkably rigged (especially if we look at round 1 of this debate as an example). the man who goes first would lose 100% of the time. As such, one round debates shouldn't be allowed. Just who would want to have a debate if they always lose, 100% guaranteed? It goes against the spirit of debating and lowers the quality of debates, and so DART would improve without these type of debate.
I Rebuttal: Pro cannot rebut new argument in a one round debate
I.a This is Pro’s impassioned complaint against one-round debates. As I quoted in r1, “Argue for your limitations; they’re yours.” Pro has claimed the lack of ability to rebut Con’s r1 argument in a one-rounder. 
I.a.1 Anticipation. By anticipation, I mean Pro can anticipate the possible rebuttals to his argument, and defeat them before Con can say/write anything. Pro must think like Con. The converse is also true, and I just have. I just negated Pro’s argument that he cannot reply to Con’s argument in a one-rounder. 
I.c Curiously, the LD Format proposes just such anticipation. It is called, “Affirmative Constructive, Cross-Examination, Negative Constructive, Cross-Examination,” etc.[i]
I.c.1 In law, it is said that no attorney should ever ask a question the answer to which the attorney does not already know.[ii]  That’s anticipation, and the means of cross-examination, in debate, by such anticipation, is to pre-suppose how the witness will answer, and construct the order and content of the pre-emptive argument, as I did in accepting this debate.
I.d I have, therefore, met the Con BoP; demonstrate how a one-round debate can be had on equal footing between Pro and Con.
Source notes in Comments.