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

============================= Contention 1: The word, 'suspicion' | ============================= In regards to the definition: It is fair In regard's to CON's argument: I'd beg to differ. Distinguished ladies and gentleman of the audience, if you'd be so kind as to take a gander at one of my opponent's most recent debates (which was started exclusively during the summer---June 17th to be precise) ( http://www.debate.org...... ), you can see for yourselves that my opponent had forfeited at least one of his rounds. In fact, if you'd be so kind as to read the previous debate on this EXACT SAME TOPIC, you'll note that he not only forfeited 1 round, but 2 additional rounds as well. Thus, the idea 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 to say the least. Rather, 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. In any case, we must keep in mind that my opponent said the exact same thing in the previous debate, only for that debate to turn out with him forfeiting 3 whole rounds. If he was wrong last time, why should I believe him this time? ===================== Contention 2: The word 'have' | ===================== PRO claims that because the resolution makes use of the word have, it must mean that I must still have a suspicion. However, like his previous argument, this is also pretty erroneous. We observing statements, we must take context into consideration. For instance, as someone who was in the first grade, I had written on a sheet of paper that I want to be in the airforce when I grow up. However, at the moment, I do not want to be in the airforce and it would be illogical for one to automatically conclude that I wanted to be in the airforce just because I had written that on a sheet of paper so many years ago. The same applies here. I created this topic several days ago, thus we're debating on whether or not I had the suspicion at the time I made the topic. What I think "outside of the topic" is irrelevant, although I do happen to still have the suspicion (which is irrelevant, but still . . .) Though if you don't buy that, I would also like to make it known that there is more than one way to forfeit. Yrealz could forfeit literally or figuratively (in some way) during this debate. As long as I can successfully argue that it is more likely than not that I possess this suspicion, I win. As for it being very easy to win this debate simply by replying, not really. There is a reason instigators often lose the "I will forfeit this debate" debates . . . and this is simply because debate is about arguing, not about making predictions. If my opponent were simply to show up in all five rounds, he'd lose because he hasn't addressed my arguments. It's this fact alone which may make it to where my opponent loses interest in participating in this debate seeing as how he more likely than not has better things to be doing. Besides, my debates are known to get lengthy and technical, so that too may possible end up boring my opponent to the point where he simply says "f--- it", only to do something more entertaining or pressing. ===================== Contention 3: Having suspicion | ===================== This is essentially a repeat of his previous argument. Like the previous argument, it ignores the context of the resolution and is thus to be dismissed without hesitation. However, I would like to point out that the mere fact that my opponent even made this argument would suggest that he himself considers it likely that he will forfeit one of the rounds in this debate. After all, if he were sure he wouldn't, he wouldn't make an argument that supports him in case he does forfeit. In other words, this should be considered as evidence of my position. ======================= My argument | ======================= 1) My opponent has been forfeiting debates for quite some time now and is not nearly as active as he was in the past. Given my opponent's most recent forfeit as well as the fact that he forfeited the prior debate on this exact same topic, probability dictates that there is a good chance he'll forfeit one round of this debate too. As already insisted, it's clear that he is moved beyond debate.org in a way many have not. 2) It is also because of #1 that one can reasonable believe that my opponent will "figuratively" forfeit. In fact, this WILL be demonstrated based on what my opponent does in the next round. For now, I won't spoil the surprise. ;) Now I'll place two cards face down and end my turn.