Division I College Football Should Implement a Play-off System

My syllogisms still stand. They're all I need. "The only argument that went uncontested by me in my opponents last post was him ranting on why the BCS doesn't change to a play-off. Filled with 'Maybe's, I Don't Know's, and Might's and If's' No where did he credidate his argument with sources. Merely assumtions. And regardless of what of the BCS thinks on if they should change the system (which of course whould be biasist to keep the current system). Even if the BCS won't implement the system, the resolution states 'should'." My syllogisms listed a lot of "might's" and "I don't knows," but they weren't needed. They were the only things opposed. So, as long as I can remove them, the remainder of my argument is completely un-refuted. I'll show how you can ignore anything questionable in my syllogism and result with a perfect negation. Then why haven't they done this yet? They must obviously have a reason. Either: A) They can't. B) They don't want to. However, there must be a reason why they have the current system they have, as opposed to a new one. If play-offs were so beneficial and viable, as you claim, then they would have implemented it already. But they haven't. They either: A) Can't. B) Don't want to. Obviously, they know more about this stuff than you do. But they A) shouldn't do something that they can't do. But they B) shouldn't do something that they don't want to do. There are two different paths that can be taken with "maybe's, with thousands of little paths within those paths that ultimately reach the same conclusion. Therefore, the logical argument is not flawed. One of the two paths (A and B) must be correct. That's not too much of an assumption. Plus, all of my assumptions are both logical and un-refuted through an entire round, so my opponent actually conceded the assumptions to be true. I don't have any physical sources, but I do have logical syllogisms, and they're really the most powerful, credible sources out there. Furthermore, my syllogisms DID address the "should" in the resolution. My opponent has not contested that they shouldn't do something that they either can't do or don't want to do. They either can't do it or they don't want to do it. CONCEDED: Division I College Football either can't implement a play-off system or doesn't want to implement a play-off system. CONCEDED: They shouldn't do something that they either can't do or don't want to do. SYLLOGISM: Division I College Football shouldn't implement a play-off system. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Which means as long as we should implement the play-off (even if its not fiseble or the BCS won't go for it.) you have to vote pro." However, it's not "we" that should implement this. It is "Division I College Football." They shouldn't do something that they can't do. They shouldn't do something they don't want to do. Therefore, you have to vote CON. "Also, if my opponent decides to finally awnser all of the questions I've asked him in all my previos post (which he won't), but if he does try to respond to them. Please note its abusive for him to bring up new arguments in his last post. He can only respond to arguments....accept he's dropped all of them so I don't really know what he's going to say." Here's what I'm going to say: My opponent is just a bickering third party who thinks that he knows what is best for a group that actually knows more than he does about the subject. I have successfully negated the resolution. A resolution that is as completely negated as this one with pure, pure logic cannot even be partially affirmed. The resolution is negated. Vote CON. All thirteen of my opponent's "voters" don't matter when the resolution they attempt to affirm has already been incinerated, demolished, and vaporized by one of the world's most powerful forces: logic. http://en.wikipedia.org... Vote CON, unless you dare to defy logic. And logic cannot be defied.