From a debate judging standpoint LM should win the "Pizza Rocks My World" debate with cliffsofdover

Ladies and gentlemen of debate.org, there is one very simple issue being debated here. Do debaters have to prove that their case is certainly true, or do they just have to show that it is probably true? Let's look at some examples. If I start a debate, "Abortion is wrong," I would obviously be arguing that abortion is wrong. However, I am not burdened with arguing that "Abortion is wrong" is a FACT. I simply have to convince the audience that Abortion is probably wrong. Unless something else is stated in the resolution, debaters must show probability, especially for a topic where 100% proof is simply not possible either way. To say that PRO must show that the resolution is DEFINITELY true, but CON only has to show that there's a possiblity that it's not true - that is to place incredibly uneven burdens on PRO and CON. In order to have a debate, one must argue. In order to argue, there must be a conflict of ideas. In Logical-Master's debate "Pizza Rocks My World," Logical-Master's position did not conflict with his opponent's position, at all. His opponent argued that Pizza rocks his world. He did not argue that pizza DEFINITELY rocks his world. If this was the case, then there would be conflict between the resolution and "Pizza might rock his world." However, this is not true. Imagine that you are in an argument. The person you're arguing with says that the main cause of global warming is the decreasing number of pirates. "That's possible" would not be a valid response from you, at least not if you're trying to argue against them. My opponent repeatedly states that his opponent in that debate was arguing a position of certainty, but he fails to back that up in this debate or in that one. As is always the case in debate, one must argue probability. Debates are ususally had over normative statements - that is, statements that are not inherently true one way or the other. "Murder is wrong", "Steps should be taken to preserve the environment", and "Pizza rocks my world" are some good examples. Sometimes there are debates that are based on facts, such as "1+1=2", and in this case, it is easy to argue certainty [since certainty actually exists], but these are the overwhelming minority of debates. Certainty was never stated in the debate between Logical-Master and cliffsofdover. PRO must affirm the resolution, CON must negate it. CON did not negate it, as his position explicitly leaves room for the resolution to be true. "Yes" and "maybe" have no conflict, unless the "yes" has a "definitely" attached to it. ["Maybe" would be conflicting with the "definitely"] Since cliffsofdover's position did not indicate certainty, it did not have a "definitely" attached to it. Therefore, "Maybe" is not in conflict with it. Also, my opponent did state last round that his cliffsofdover did not adequately put forward anything to affirm the resolution. However, him stating at the very beginning that "Piza iz da bestest food! It iz amazin an it tasts good." at least suggests that it does rock his world. Since Logical-Master gave no reason to suggest otherwise in the debate, I have only that to consider when deciding whether I should be convinced by CON or by PRO. Thus, I can only be convinced by PRO, since CON did not give me any reason why Pizza doesn't rock PRO's world. I indeed was convinced by CON's argument that PRO's world being rocked by pizza was possible, but this did not stop me from also being convinced that PRO's world was probably rocked by pizza. Also, round 4 is up.