Seismology is a pseudoscience

In this round I will be introducing a definition and explaining why the negation wins based on my understanding (which, if it was wrong, was never corrected by the affirmative) of the round.Definition:The affirmation seems to misunderstand 'burden of proof' as evidence. As such, I will define it for him for future reference."This phrase is employed to signify the duty of proving the facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a cause [1]."Why the negation wins this debateMy understanding of the debate, as quoted from round one, is as follows. The resolution is of the following statement "Seismology is a pseudoscience." My opponent is affirming the above statement. I am negating. For this resolution, I understand the burden of proof to be shared. The affirmation must prove the status quo is false, and must refute purpose as established by the negation. The negation must support the status quo with my own argumentation, including establishing and affirming its purpose. Round one is acceptance Standard debating etiquette applies The above understanding of the debate is fair The affirmative makes no objection or correction at any point in the round for the negation's understanding. The negation was permitted to establish the purpose of seismology because the affirmative asks in round one, "...what exactly [do] seismologists do other than guesses?" Both sides require burden of proof because the affirmation was to argue against the status quo, and the negation must have established the purpose of seismology. The affirmation's reason for success is insufficient. Never in the debate was it established that the negation's job was to prove that seismology is useful in the general population's day to day lives. The affirmation makes the claim that, since the negation did not successfully prove why, the negation has lost the round. I disagree. The above reason for success by the affirmative is the first time that seismology improving the general population's day to day lives is mentioned, and as such, this falls under the Red Herring fallacy. The affirmation mentions no other reasons for success. The affirmation failed to meet his burden of proof. According to my understanding of the debate, the burden of proof has been shared. The affirmation's job in this debate was to disprove the status quo (which is that seismology is not a pseudoscience). In his endeavours, he provides two visible arguments in addition to his closing statement: that seismology is not similar to other sciences and that seismology cannot predict the location or frequency of earthquakes. In round two, the negation dismissed the affirmation's main argument due to the conclusion that either its minor premise and major premise were mutually exclusive or incorrect. The affirmation did attempt to refute the dismissal in round three; however, in the same round the negation pointed out the existence of a Non Sequitur fallacy and a Straw Man fallacy in the said refutation. The affirmation's other argument, also found in round three, failed because it was a claim of fact with no warrant or support. The affirmation's also requirement was to either refute the established purpose by the negation, or to proof that the established purpose still allowed it to be a pseudoscience. The affirmative did not address any of the negation's contentions. The negation successfully met his burden of proof. The negation's job in this debate was to support the status quo (which is that seismology is not a pseudoscience). As mentioned in the above section, the negation successfully defeated both of the affirmation's arguments. Additionally, the negation must have supplied and defended the purpose of seismology. The negation established that seismology's purpose was to primarily collect data as well as detect underground nuclear detonations, determine the location of oil, and determine the contents of the inner earth among other things. This can be found in round two. In this debate, the affirmation only addressed one claim from the negation, saying that his main argument should not be dismissed. The negation's other arguments, including every contention, remained untouched. For the reasons stated above (excluding the definition), I, the negation, urge a CON ballot. I thank the affirmation for the debate. [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... As a note, new instances of logical fallacies have been bolded in my posts.