Red Lumas have trust issues.

First, my opponent suggests that since he has stated something, then it must be true. My opponent did not state that by taking the debate, I hold his assignment to be truth. My opponent simply made a statement, one that happens to be false. If I were arguing against moral relativity and just so happened to state that 1 + 1 = 6, this does not mean that for the entire debate, we must operate under that premise. Thus, the mere fact that he says "Pro has the burden" is of the same truth value as "1 + 1 = 6". There is no evidence suggesting it. Second, my opponent believes he is quoting a situation in which I agree with him. Please note that the quote is incorrect and, applies to a completely different debate from the one he has included the link to. In short, he is deliberatel misquoting me for his own means. In response to my opponent's querie as to where the burden for this debate lies: . http://www.debate.org... I respond: "There can be no general rule to burden of proof until the resolution is known. Once the resolution is known, then the burden is objectively clear. Whether the person is the instigator or the contender, whether the person is PRO or CON, these things can serve as general guidelines but are not always correct. If we were to decide on one, then technically, the Instigator/Contender distinction would be the best. However, that does not mean that in this sort of situation: . http://www.debate.org... the burden rests on the Instigator. I believe that in this instance, the burden rests on the contender. " Note that I was referring to the "instance" that I quoted, which is preceded by me stating that not all debates have burdens which fall under the "Instigator/Contender" distinction. Note again that I was *not* referring to the debate which my opponent posted and note that the debate which my opponent posted is vastly different from the debate I was referring to. In the debate that I was actually referring to, the resolution dealt with the existence of something (God), and I have already listed that as an exception in my last round. In the debate that my opponent CLAIMED that I was referring to, CON as the instigator held the burden because he was making the claim. Thus, it still stands: CON has the burden in this case because he is the instigator and he is making the claim. If my opponent meant to make the resolution "there is not enough proof for one to conclude that Red Lumas have trust issues", then he should have made that the resolution. Unfortunately, he did not, and the resolution and this debate is formulated in a way such that the burden rests on the one making the proposition, the Instigator, in which he makes a claim that must be substantiated. **** My opponent's responses can be shortened into a total of three counterpoints: 1. The secret of the Red Luma is not exclusive to the Red Luma 2. The secrecy of the Red Luma is justified First of all, my opponent provides no conclusive evidence for either scenario, only assumptions. There is nothing that suggests that the other Luma know the secret, not is there any evidence suggesting that Rosalina knows the secret. Thus, without concrete evidence, how can we say that the Luma definitely has no trust issues? Secondly, I concede the point that the Red Luma may have suffered some sort of paranoia in favor of another interpretation: The Red Luma's characteristics as portrayed by my opponent are clearly defense mechanisms. Let us first go over the facts: . http://www.mariowiki.com... . http://www.mariowiki.com... Red Luma assigns a mission and provides the red star to Mario in order to complete the mission. In completing the mission, the prize of using the Red Star in the observatory is awarded. The Red Star powerup, which is allegedly "protected" by the Red Luma, is thus a powerup that is relatively useless in the game, opening up only a few trivial things that are not of much importance to the plot. The fact that the Red Luma is placed in charge of something so insignificant while still announcing with such pride that it has "a secret", is essentially a pathetic cry for attention and respect. Other Luma are seen to provide much more in the game, thus the Red Luma may possibly be an outcast of sorts due to its lack of skill in any other area. This feeling of inadequacy led to hyperinflated egoism. The "trust" isn't being earned at all. In fact, the Luma probably gave up its secret like a fat girl gives up her virginity on Prom night: last ditch effort to avoid being a complete social outcast. Since Mario was being established as a hero and recognized by Rosalina, the Red Luma had no choice but to join in, any way possible. The issue isn't about not trusting enough, it's about not being able to rationally place trust. The Luma *does* have trust issues, but not in unfairly keeping Mario from its secret, its trust issue is basically a pathological, unjustified trust in his own self worth. We must then wonder whether or not this poor soul has the mental capacity to trust at all. It would probably confide its secret in anyone who he thinks would find it useful and boost its self esteem. A further exploration in the next round. I shall let my opponent respond first. Thank you.