Debate.org version 3 will more likely than not be up and running by the time this debate concludes.

"if I can show that the probability of debate.org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate to more likely than not be less than or equal to 50% I win." At no point is my opponent actually doing this. Keep in mind, he must DEMONSTRATE that the probability is 50% or lower, yet all he is doing is providing criticisms on my arguments, but even through attacking my arguments, it doesn't bring us to the conclusion that it is indeed 50% or lower, hence, why I dictated that he needed some defense. Otherwise, it'll be like a football game where one team with a strong offense and defense is up against a team which has absolutely no one on its defensive team. Unless the former's defensive team is goofing off, the former is going to win 99.9% of the time. Furthermore, the purpose of "more likely than not" is that I acknowledge that I cannot provided conclusive evidence, but evidence that can demonstrate that my position (which is that V3 will be up) is likely true. CON's constant demand for conclusive evidence not only ignores the resolution, but my original request concerning the "intended debate" as well, hence why I did not provide a number crunching deductive argument in R1. Regarding faith, faith would mean that I was intentionally making that claim without any intention of providing evidence, however, I have provided evidence for my claim, so this line of discussion is absolutely meaningless and thus should not be pursued. RE: "I ask my opponent to clarify when I have apparently said that the webmaster holds ALL truth. From what I know, I have said nothing of the sort." 1) Based on the very comment my opponent is quoting you can see that I requested him to point precisely to the place where I insinuated that the webmaster holds truth all of the time (not that the webmaster omniscient as that is a different claim entirely). 2) My opponent made the statement which I accused him of making in his first round in the following quote: "As members have already seen, this in itself is not necessarily true. Thus, the webmaster is not to be considered holding truth all of the time." RE: "Credibility does not equal certainty. Again, my opponent must PROVE that the probability of debate.org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate (as stated initially) is at least 51%" No, but credibility does boost likelihood (the purpose of this debate) of being correct. Not only that, but credible sources are sources which are correct MOST of the time (keep this in mind as CON conceding to the webmaster being credible will be his downfall). "The point is, I asked the question so I could choose whether or not I wanted to pursue a sub-argument here, dependent upon the response of my opponent." I submit that the question is irrelevant, therefore sufficient reason to ignore it, but to pacify CON, I'll go with the answer provided in the comment section. The webmaster is this fellow called "Nate." RE: Quite the contrary; it is rather unreasonable to assume that debate.org version 3.0 would necessarily be up sooner rather than later." In this point, my opponent has contradicted himself. Although he agrees with my logic on how progression increases probability of completion (in other words, the more progress that is made, the lower the amount of time until the completion, which incidentally, concludes that sooner is more likely than later), he says I'm wrong. To make sure this point is understood by both my opponent and my audience, allow me to make it simpler. There are two possible results: Sooner and later. Without observing any evidence, the likelihood of either result occurring is 50%. When observing evidence before a project is started, the chances of sooner remain at 0% whereas the chances of later remain at 100%. However, we know the project began, know the percentage has been increasing (as conceded by CON) and know that the webmaster is correct (51% or more) most of the time. Ergo, this would show that the percentage of completion was 51% or more. RE: "As well, the webmaster could have gotten sick, or perhaps was even getting tired of debate.org. The point is, neither my opponent nor I can derive that for certain." I covered this in the previous round. This argument would only be effective if I were advocating that it was certain that debate.org would be up and running by the time of this debate's conclusion, however, this is not my position as my position ALLOWS an endless number of possibilities. If CON wishes to make use of these possibilities, then he must prove that they weigh 50% or more. "This potential "evidence" does not constitute proof." Of course not, however, the rules of potential/probability are far different than the rules of certainty. When I make a claim for "potential/probability", my opponent cannot simply say "Ha, well that doesn't conclusively show that the odds are 50/50." Potential/probability is based on observable evidence and changes depending on the evidence which is observed and taken into consideration. In other words, it is by no means conclusive. To elaborate on this, allow me to go into example. Example: Lets say a kid is taking a multiple choice quiz which he/she is completely unprepared for. On this quiz, each question gives four choices. Thus, without any extra knowledges, the chances of this kid guessing correctly is 25% However, if this kid were to have studied somewhat, he/she would have more information to go on, thus, the chances of guessing correctly (at least for the questions the kid has knowledge of) would no longer be 25% and would vary depending on how much knowledge the kid had concerning the questions. What does this tell us? That percentages are not conclusive as if they were, then that would mean that they never change. With that being pointed out, it's clear that CON"s "lack of conclusive evidence" argument holds no water. If that is to be taken as true, then all he has is the possibilities which he had thrown in earlier (possibility of the webmaster getting sick,etc). While these are all interesting possibilities, he hasn't shown how these possibilities weigh 50% or more in proving the topic false, thus, you are to see my position (the position with actual evidence, as even CON acknowledges that I have evidence) as being 99.99999 . . .% likely. "Well, the side with the strongest "evidence" does not necessarily hold truth." Perhaps not, but the side with the strongest evidence is the side with the strongest argument and the side with the strongest argument is the side which wins the debate. :D RE" "This debate . . ." That's not what I meant. I wanted to know what made this debate different from any other. RE: "Therefore, I can even have inductive reasoning itself, generally in favor of and to aid in my defense. I show that, because inductive reasoning can point either way in this debate, it must be avoided in." Alright, I think I have a better understanding of CON's position now. He is saying that he can reasonably show based on inductive reasoning that the resolution is false, thus, I challenge him to do this. At no point in this debate has he attempted to do this. Rather, he has simply insisted that he can, thus, there is no premise for his conclusion. IF he can prove his point, we'll move on to the next premise. Furthermore, this is to be taken as a confession that he has no defense as he has not shown why the alternative to my position is more likely true. "Inductive reasoning, my point is, as my opponent has so readily agreed with, is subjective." False. I agree that there was subjectivity to SOME extent (incidentally, I also insinuated that deductive reasoning relies on inductive reasoning). If it were entirely subjective, there'd be no logical basis to it (in other words, no reliance on facts, evidence, etc). I believe I've addressed everything necessary so that'll do it for now.