I have a suspicion that my opponent will forfeit at least one round of this debate.

==================== Contention 2: The world 'have' ==================== 1A) First, I would like for you (the audience) to pay special attention to the answer my opponent provided to my question during C/X "It would be logical for him to have a suspicion that that is what the other guy meant." In essence, he agrees with the notion that if someone were to have clarified on something in the past, it would be logical to adhere to the past clarification on the following occurrence. Ladies and gentleman, the fact of the matter is that I provided this exact same clarification on what I meant IN MY PREVIOUS DEBATE WITH MY OPPONENT. Hence, it is only logical for him to adhere to how I interpret the word have in the very resolution I created. You heard it out of my opponent's own mouth, ladies and gentleman. 1B) I would also like to note that my opponent's answer to my fourth question does him no good. If we are to adhere to each other's testimony, then what is to stop me from testifying the fact what I (the creator of the resolution) mean by the resolution? Either my opponent gets rid of his testimony in agreeing that testimony from the debaters themselves is unreasonable or he gets rid of his argument against how the topic is to be interpreted. In either case, his position is weakened considerably. 2) But in spite of the fact that this contention is pretty much demolished due to the answers my opponent provided during C/X, I shall tear down his arguments the old fashioned way just to pacify him. A) He says that ideas are examined in the status quo unless someone specifically mandated the past in the topic. He even furthers this notion by providing an amusing example of a debate which is started due to our conflicting views on the color of a hypothetical cat. However, the problem with his example is that it completely ignored my prior contention as well as this idea called context. What he proposed was a scenario where both he and I were walking down a street, only to argue as we observe the street. This isn't quite the same as a debate round. My opponent of all people should know how a debate round is conducted. Two debaters research the topic and/or prepare the manner of their argumentation, only to THEN debate over the topic. In essence, the debate concerns entirely what two debaters have obtained from past experiences/research; every ounce of the debate is based around ideas observed in the past (not the present or future). Furthermore, for a debate round, there is no "we looked up again, and the cat had suddenly changed colors, thus we change our arguments." Both debaters have a goal and that goal is to win. My opponent himself acknowledges this as far back as this debate: http://www.debate.org... . . . in which he confessed to using fallacious practices in order to "win" debate rounds. He boasts about not being interested in the truth, but rather merely interested in getting a verdict from the audience that is in his favor. In fact, you shall be able to see this quite clearly in the following round from my opponent himself and shall all the more be able to understand that the ideal exchange which he is referring to is most contrary to what he himself expects out of a debate round. What I'm insinuating is that my opponent shall most likely deny the testimony I've given regarding how this topic is to be interpreted. On the other hand, in the kind of exchange which he is referring to in his example as well as in his response to my answer during C/X, he would most likely accept my clarification on this matter without hesitation (for the sake of all that is reasonable). The fact that my opponent acknowledges this as a debate round rather than a simple exchange between friends is quite damaging as far as this point is concerned. 3) Yes, there are quite a few ways for my opponent to forfeit the debate round that don't revolve around the traditional idea of the term forfeit (IF YOU DON'T BUY ANYTHING ABOVE, YOU'LL BUY THIS FOR SURE) We must ask ourselves two questions? What is a debate and what is a round? If I am to use one of the dictionary.com renderings of the term, we view debate as "A discussion involving opposing points; an argument." and view round (another dictionary.com definition) as "any complete course, series, or succession: The strike was settled after a long round of talks; a round of parties", the one can easily conclude that 1) "This debate can never actually end" and 2) That my opponent merely failing to participate in one sequence of our discussion could be considered a forfeit. With these two conclusions established, as long as I don't lose my suspicion during these five sequences of the debate, it will be most logical to vote PRO. Keep in mind that there is almost nothing to stop this debate from going on into the comment section and that my opponent failing to respond for the rest of his life (which I suspect he will fail to do) in the comment section could be constituted as a forfeit. Nevertheless, your job (as the voters) is to vote based on what occurs during these five rounds in this part of the debate rather than the part of the debate that I shall continue in the comment section. Basically, unwinnable debate for CON; conclusive victory for PRO. ==================== Contention 3: Having suspicion ==================== 1) In essence, this argument boils down to what you think about the first parts of the previous contention. In other words, all I did here was extend my argument. 2) I'm dropping the additional point I made here since I don't remember where I was going with it (more like I'm kind of sleepy, but w/e) as well as the fact that I don't need it to win. :D =============== Logical's arguments # 1 =============== 1) My opponent does not actually attack my argument, but rather a strawman which he concocted on his own. I say this out of the fact that I did not "prove" that my opponent has moved on. What I stated that is that it being summer would be ample reason for me to lose my suspicion of the idea that my opponent will in fact forfeit at least one round of this debate is preposterous and that it is more LIKELY that my opponent has simply grown beyond debate.org and associates himself with other matters far more often than he may have a year ago. Stating that something is likely is different than stating something is conclusive. However, my claim of likelihood is certainly based on conclusive information and that is that my opponent's participation in debates has been consistently decreasing. The less participation, the higher the probability of not participating becomes. Ergo, looking at this matter objectively (without looking at something like a testimony provided by none other than my opponent, someone who has admitted to still using faulty practices in order to get judges to vote for him), it's not only reasonable to clam that I have a suspicion, but the suspicion itself is quite reasonable. 2) Ladies and gentleman, if you buy the remark I made about the usage of testimony in the first part of the above contention, dismiss my opponent's testimony. If my opponent agrees with the use of testimony, dismiss a large chunk of my opponent's second contention. 3) My opponent has contradicted himself. Whereas before he has claimed himself to simply be too busy, he is now claiming that he intentionally forfeited debates to recognized as loser. Such contradiction warrants dismissal of his testimony. ================ Logical's Argument #2 ================ I was initially going to count on something else which my opponent brought up in his case to support my argument, but I completely fell in love with the argument I made in section 3 of contention 2 since it effectively nullifies his position on every front. And that'll do it for now. :D