The Chicken Came Before The Egg

Before I delve back into our cases I would like to point out that my opponent decided to drop/concede the pre-emption arguments I made. From my understanding this was done out of the idea that these arguments do not sufficiently define his line of thinking. However, my opponent has failed to answer then the burden of proof argument that I had laid into one of my counter arguments. The argument goes like this "I also challenge the con to meet the burden of this debate by justifying the true definition of the egg which is reproduction of life of the chicken. Thus then I win the argument that the first chicken exists out of the confides of the egg", the burden of proof was simple in that he had to prove how the chicken came first within the confides of how I had defined the egg as the REPRODUCITON of the chicken. Thus his argument about the chicken (even if it was a mutation or genetic variation) being in the egg of another similar animal does not meet the burden of proof. Thus the pro will win because the true "egg" in this debate is limited to the definition that a chicken lays the egg and another chicken is born, NOT that there was an egg for another bird and a chicken popped out of it. This means you have to vote pro right now, but if you don't like that argument allow me to go on to the rest of the case. The only argument my opponent makes is the evolutionary one. He assumes I will not challenge the evolutionary premise and that is true but I will challenge where he uses the theory incorrectly. Lets take a look at P3 where my opponent said this "Chickens are a domesticated bird" and lets break down what it means to have a domesticated bird. To domesticate a bird Humans had to train a chicken (AKA Domesticate it) and thus then breed it to start a line of domesticated chickens. By my opponents very definition of the modern chicken he concedes that there first had to be a chicken that was domesticated before it could be bred meaning Pro wins in the instance of this evidence. On to the actual "meat" of his argument, my opponent claims that the only reason he wins is because the chicken surely came from the egg of another species through mutation. However there are instances where this argument is logically wrong. For one, the mutation does not have to start in the form of egg reproduction, there are instances where mutation has created a live birthing animal that lays eggs. Secondly the entire justification for this argument goes against the BURDEN OF PROOF that my opponent blatantly ignored. Now for the rebuilding of my case:There are only two of my arguments that I wish to extend here because they are in fact damning to my opponents case. #1: Embryonic Development:The only response my opponent makes to the this argument is that it is infinitely regressive. However I would like to point out that what my opponent labels as infinite regression is actually, wait for it. .. BREEDING. The chickens lay more eggs which make more chickens. This is also my justification for the burden of proof argument because it defends the premise that the CHICKEN'S EGG creates the chicken not the egg coming first. Likewise recent research has proved that the development of an egg can only come from inside the embryo of a chicken and thus only chicken eggs come from chickens. This is the most important argument because it defines that actual premise for argumentation; that the chicken had to have originated to make the egg not as my opponent wishes to argue that the chicken had to be born from another species to make more chickens. #2 Evolution:Lets get something straight here, because we are not going to post evidence and simply explain our logical arguments then we can safely assume that we do not know for sure where the chicken originated and thus logically assuming that it simply came like all other birds is a flawed line of thinking with no reason, other than trust, to support it. So then you have to assume to believe my logic that explains from within the burden of proof in this debate that the chicken had to exist before it created more chickens. All of my opponents justifications concede Pro they do not assume the purpose of the debate. Thus, you as the judge must then assume to vote that the chicken in some sense came before the egg of the chicken was ever produced. In conclusion, this round is clearly pro because the con has not met the burden of proof outlined in my first speech and this cannot prove without a doubt that the first chicken came from the chicken's egg and in fact, by my line of logic, mutated from other form and came to be to then be able breed and have more chickens. To sum up the purpose, the debate was to prove whether the chicken or the chicken's egg came first and clearly arguing that the chicken came from some sort of egg is not to prove that the chicken definitively came from the egg and also does not meet the burden of proof.