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

A seemingly predictable set of answers, for sure. ^.^ For the time being I'm going to ignore contention one, I'll re-examine it next round or the round after (whichever round still gives my opponent time to respond. ==================== Contention 2: The world 'have' ==================== First things first, notice that my opponent has argued that the context must be taken into consideration: "We observing statements, we must take context into consideration." I'd agree with him here, extend this idea, it's going to be devastating for his case. The problem here is that my opponent doesn't truly consider the context. One example is given, it has to do with something he wrote down in the first grade. This example, while entertaining, has nothing to do with a debate round. To truly examine the context, the fact that we are in a debate round must be taken into consideration. And in a debate round.... ideas are examined in the status quo unless someone specifically mandated the past in the topic. For example if logical and I were walking down a street and saw a cat I may start an argument. I'd tell him that the cat was quite obviously a blue cat. He'd probably argue that the cat was yellow. In fact we may even say, "I have a suspicion that the cat is {insert color}." Now, if we looked up again, and the cat had suddenly changed colors we would change our arguments. In essence, we would cease to argue about the past ideas because they would no longer be applicable. I'd look at logical and say, "I think perhaps that cat can change to be whatever color it wants to be...." Logical would look at me and say, "You have to take in the context of when I made my statement, it was yellow then thus I have a suspicion that it is yellow." This line of argumentation, of course, wouldn't make a great deal of sense and our debate would be rather unprofitable. On the contrary in this situation, logical would see that his original opinion was wrong and he would modify it, "I think the cat is part of our imaginations!". My point is simple. In debates, arguments are evaluated in real time, not in the past. There have been numerous scientific debates in which people constantly change their opinions away from faulty ones. You'd never hear a great scientist tell you that her prediction was right because she felt that way at the time. She would evaluate her prediction as of the very moment you started talking with her. Thus, if my opponents prediction, "I have a suspicion that my opponent will forfeit at least one round of this debate" is proven to be wrong by the end of the debate then he looses. The idea that he had the prediction makes little sense in the context of a debate round and should never be a compelling reason to vote for him. Next, Logical makes and argument that there are many ways for me to forfeit. I'd agree. He also says that if he can successfully argue that he still has a suspicion then he wins. Also agree, but he wont. =P Finally on this contention, my opponent argues that if I only showed up and never addressed his arguments I'd still lose. This is true, but I have addressed his arguments, so the point is not applicable to this debate. ==================== Contention 3: Having suspicion ==================== My opponent does very little on this argument. All he has to say is that I ignore the context. My argument is thus, that he ignores the context not I. Say him and I were talking and he told me that I'd probably forget to respond to something he was saying. If I then did just that he would be able to tell me that he was right. However, in a debate round, where the resolution is what we are debating about, that resolution stays the same for the entire debate round until it is done. If logical suddenly loses his suspicion halfway through the round the resolution doesn't just simply disappear. We would still be debating whether the resolution is true or false in real time. Thus, should this happen, it is a rather compelling reason for vote for me. =============== Logical's arguments # 1 =============== 1. Logical's argument is that I have moved beyond debate.org in away many have not. In this argument he is considering two ideas, "Yraelz forfeits rounds sometimes" and "Yraelz has moved on to different things". He then decides that "Yraelz forfeiting rounds" must be a symptom of "Yraelz has moved on" and uses it as proof. This is a really great example of a non-sequitur fallacy. Simply because two things have occurred around the same time does not mean that they are related. For instance, when the rooster can be heard crowing, the sun is typically rising. However this does not mean because the rooster crowed that the sun did rise. On the contrary, exactly the opposite is happening. My opponent, knowing me well, knows that I enjoy a challenging debate. In fact he even knows that I left this account for a period of time to make a new account because I was interested in challenging myself to get back to the top spot. Sadly, I didn't find much joy in my new account due to the fact that I had to disguise my debating technique as to not allow others to realize who I was. Thus I came back to this account with my thirst for a challenge in tact. Having used this site for nearly two years I have come to realize that people will vote for, in my instances, whoever they think is the better debater. For about two months, that debater was I, being at the #1 position on the chart. I noticed, in that position, that I often didn't even have to make really great arguments in order to win debate rounds, in fact I really just had to show up and say something. Even more comical people added me as a friend simply because I was on the #1 spot. I decided a new challenge was in order. Perhaps, if I stayed away from this website for a bit, and forfeited many debate rounds, people would forget about me enough or recognize me as a loser. Perhaps people would forget about me enough so that I would once again have to make good arguments in order to win a debate round. The bonus side of this would be that my rankings would slowly fall until I would be able to do what I always wanted to do with my other account. I'd be able to try to work my way back up from a lower spot. Thus, my fascination with forfeiting debate rounds has little to do with having moved on. The opposite is true. I'm forfeiting debate rounds because I want to have more fun on this site. ================ Logical's Argument #2 ================ It's possible that I have put enough of a twist on my opponents first argument that he will not be able to deploy this argument anymore. If that's true sweet, otherwise I'll just have to wait for this new argument. In the meantime, I wish my opponent a great response. Now I'll use my Heavy Storm spell card completely destroying my opponents strategy and play one card face down. This ends my turn.