The User Known As "Bluesteel" is a girl

Extend my presumption argument that if the debate is tied and you're not sure of who won the debate, presume that I'm right because a) I've been around longer and have known bluesteel longer, therefore am a better authority on bluesteel than my opponent, and b) I've been in G+ hangout sessions with bluesteel when she had her camera off, therefore I possess eyewitness testimony that my opponent lacks. His only response to these points is that I have burden of proof so I still have to prove that bluesteel's a girl, but that's the entire point of my two contentions. This isn't responsive to my presumption argument. I can just say that if you're not sure if I've fulfilled my burden of proof or not, then presume I have for the same two reasons my opponent dropped. Extend my contention one. User hood in the sense of an online username is distinct from personhood in that a user is an entirely digitally constructed entity that may or may not correlate to the person that enters the login credentials for that user. Look to the two reasons I give you as for why you should separate personhood from userhood in that a) the potential for multiple users having access to a single account doesn't mean that the account is both male and female, meaning the only stable identity is the user identity rather than the person identity, and b) the potential for one person to have different accounts with different information doesn't split apart the person's identity, since the splitting of person ontologically doesn't make sense, meaning that the only logical information to go off of is the stated user identity. He makes a few responses to this idea, so I'll respond to each one specifically. He responds: "According to Merriam Webster..."His definition is flawed here because it's not specific to an internet user, rather it talks about a generic "user", which could be referencing drug users to Xbox users. This debate is using the subject of user being the internet identity, which his definition doesn't address. Moreover, even if his definition is solid, he's not providing you with any kind of warrant as for why this invalidates my argument, rather just throws the definition in your face and says "I win, moving on."He responds: "Although it's possible to pretend ... pro must show that the person ..."This doesn't actually respond to the argument I'm making. Go back and read my argument. I'm arguing that because there's these discrepencies that we can consider userhood different from personhood. And because the resolution is specific to the "user" known as bluesteel rather than the "person" known as bluesteel, I don't actually need to prove that the person who uses the account known as "bluesteel" is a girl, all I need to do is prove that the user known as "bluesteel" is a girl, which are two entirely different things according to my argument. He responds: "Although this is technically possible..." and "Not on Debate.org. The terms..."I'm not arguing that this is the case here. My argument is saying that because this is a thing that could possibly happen, that we have to consider userhood separate from personhood. Whether it's the case here is irrelevant to my argument. And being specific to the multiple users per person, it's definitely happened in the past regardless of the legal terms so just saying that it's technically not allowed doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. But even if it didn't, my argument isn't specific to Debate.org, rather the internet in general since my argument applies to generic userhood rather than Debate.org userhood. He responds: "If multiple people were using the account ..." and "Again, the traits of a person using a website ..."This is making the assumption that personhood = userhood, which not only a) is the entire thing that my argument is intending to separate, but b) is a concept I've already refuted since he's just relying on his faulty definition to warrant it. With all of his responses finished, my first contention stands solid. If I'm winning on my first contention, you're affirming because if all I have to do is show that the user identifies as female, since bluesteel's profile clearly shows female, I win the debate. Then, extend my second contention. I give a syllogism showing that because bluesteel was in a romantic/sexual relationship with a proven heterosexual male on the site in Mikal, that by the definition of heterosexual, bluesteel has to be female. The thing that you have to be aware of is by the nature of a syllogism, if all of the premises are true and stand, then the conclusion must necessarily be true because that's how deductive logic works. He doesn't contest any of the premises, and even concedes that they're true, which means that the conclusion must necessarily be true. This means that his responses are just default wrong via deductive logic. But even if his responses aren't wrong, let's talk about them for a second.His response to the conclusion is that my proof is insufficient because people could be joking or lying, and I need more serious evidence. Since this is partially his responses to other points, I'm going to address it as an overall concept.Prefer the evidence I provide over my opponent's cries for more evidence because nothing I provide will ever be sufficient. Any kind of evidence I provide he'll always being able to retroactively find some way to say it's fallible and ask for better evidence. I got a written statement from bluesteel saying that she's a girl? Not good enough, she could be joking or lying, do better. Verbal recording of her admitting that she's a girl? Not good enough, could be voice altering or someone else talking and it not being bluesteel, do better. Video recording of her annoucing her identity and that she's a girl? Not good enough, got someone else to pose as bluesteel, do better. He'll always be able to retroactively make some kind of excuse for why all the evidence I pull up isn't sufficient. If this is how you view my arguments, it makes the resolution indeterminable because we aren't sure WHAT gender bluesteel is. If the resolution becomes indeterminable, you still affirm anyway because a) I'm winning the presumption debate, so you just presume I'm more likely to be right and affirm, and b) I'm contesting the burden of proof being on me because we already have a statement as for bluesteel's gender on her profile. This means that under the status quo bluesteel's a girl. If Con wants to contest the status quo, he adopts the burden of proof to show that bluesteel's profile is a lie. Without sufficient proof there's no reason to diverge from the status quo.So let's summarize the debate so far. 1. Burden of proof lies on Con because under the status quo, we see that bluesteel is a girl via her profile. Outside of proof from Con that this isn't the case, we default to bluesteel's profile information and affirm the resolution. This is especially problematic because con presents no negating arguments of his own, rather spends all of his time refuting my arguments. This means that it's impossible for him to fulfill his burden of proof. 2. Even if the BoP is on me instead of con, you still presume I'm winning the debate because I'm a much better authority on who bluesteel is than my opponent, thus am more likely correct that she's a girl. His responses don't actually address the argument I make here so I'm winning the presumption debate. If the debate is at all close in any way, you affirm.3. I'm winning on both of my contentions, both of which independently show how bluesteel has to be a girl. All I need to do is win one of those arguments to show that bluesteel is a girl since both of them argue independently for why bluesteel is a girl. He's not doing anywhere near enough work to show why my arguments are flawed, and I've responded to every single response he made against my arguments. I'm winning the contention level debate hands down. Easy affirmative vote.