This debate is awesome!

Kudos to Pro. I couldn't possibly think of a better 69th debate than this. FrameworkMy adversary admits that he is making a positive claim to the effect of “this debate is awesome.” However, he goes on to commit a logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof to me to disprove his claim. This is NEVER the case. The burden of proof always lies with the person making the positive claim. “The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.” [1]Moreover, in a world where the BOP lies on someone to DISPROVE a motion, we can make whatever wonky statements we'd like and posit that they are true unless proven wrong. This is horribly flawed reasoning; if Pro were to say, for instance, that a pink unicorn exists in this room at this very moment in time, he could not posit that I must DISPROVE this horrid assertion of his. That would be a negative-proof fallacy because I cannot prove that such a unicorn doesn't exist: it is impossible to disprove a negative. The burden of proof always lies on the person making a positive claim [2].In light of this fact, and the fact that my burden analysis and any argument I offer will go completely uncontested, Pro has already lost this debate. He did not set as a stipulation of this debate that I would take on the BOP, but rather asserted it as a form of argument, one that I have already debunked thoroughly. Even if we were to posit a horrifically unrealistic scenario where the BOP lies with me, the fact that I can offer several contentions at this moment that will go unrefuted is enough to win this debate for me. I will now offer several contentions shooting down this resolution. C1) My adversary makes a categorical statementMy adversary suggests that this debate is categorically awesome. However, this cannot possibly be the case. Awesomeness is subject; what is awesome for one person may not be awesome for another. P1) If something is categorically awesome, it must be universally conceived as awesome. P2) One person, such as myself, could say that it isn't awesome – I say it isn't. C1) Therefore, it is not categorically awesome. In the case where this debate is not categorically awesome – and I have demonstrated that awesomness is subjective – my opponent cannot win. “Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the world. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.” [3]P1) I am the only mind, so only my judgments matter. P2) I say that this debate isn't awesome.C1) Therefore, this debate isn't awesome. C3) Pro fails to establish the criteria for establishing objective awesomeness To win this debate, my opponent would need to have borne out the following syllogism: P1) If item (a) possesses (x), (y), and (z) criteria, it is objectively awesome. P2) Item (a) possesses (x), (y), and (z) criteria. C1) Therefore, item (a) is objectively awesome.The duty of course is to define, establish and defend (x), (y), and (z) criteria over, say, (d), (e), and (f) criteria and to prove that item (a) possesses those criteria such that we meet our C1. However, my opponent has failed to establish those criteria, so P1 falls. Because he has failed to establish them so we don't have any basis to work from, P2 also falls. Finally, C1 falls because the premises have disintegrated. C4) The ACTUAL criteria for objective awesome I will establish the criteria, insofar as they can be established, for being objectively awesome: you are objectively awesome if your name is Mikal, Ajab, or Mestari. P1) If your name is Mikal, Ajab, or Mestiari, only then are you objectively awesome. P2) This debate is not named Mikal, Ajab, or Mestiari.C1) Therefore, this debate is NOT objectively awesome. Now, you may be wondering how I can establish objectiveness awesomeness after stating earlier that awesomeness is subjective. There are several possible explanations for this: I. Localized awesomeness; i.e., awesomeness may be objective within societies though not objective universally.II. Objective truths may exist, but we aren't able to experience enough in order to come to them. Based on what we have experienced, the most from which we can glean is that Ajab, Mikal, and Mestari are either objectively awesome or the closest thing we could possibly get to objectively awesome. Now, why are they awesome? I'll go through them: Mikal – OVA 9000 ELO. Here's a fun video for your enjoyment [4].Ajabi – knows more about philosophy than every single philosophy professor I have ever had combined (disclaimer: I took two honors philosophy courses with the same professor and he's positively brilliant, but that's a story for another day). Tim – Did anyone watch his troll debate [5]? My god. (Don't worry, Ajab. I love you both equally.)C5) Pro's assertion and resolution preclude debatePro has made a one-round debate and has not defended his proposition which he would need to do as the BOP lies on the persons making positive claims. By shunning debates, he has caused us to call into question whether anything he says or does can even access awesomeness. P1) Debate is awesomeness.P2) Precluding debate is awesome C1) Therefore, this debate cannot be awesome.If you think debate is awesome, you must vote Con.C6) Pro changes the goalposts Note that the title of this debate uses the word “awesome” but Pro says that he makes the claim that the debate is “amazing.” These are two fundamentally different words. Pro does not even use the word “awesome” in his opening piece, so he himself hasn't even affirmed our resolution. For that reason alone you should vote Con. C7) This isn't even a debate According to Merriam Webster, a debate is “a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something.” [6]However, this was not a discussion. This was only a single round. A usual debate has the following elements: -Acceptance -Opening arguments-Rebuttals-Counter-Rebuttals-Closing ArgumentsHowever, my arguments went completely unrefuted an we never had a discussion. As I pointed out in my last contention, he didn't even properly affirm! Because Pro can't contest my arguments, I could literally define awesome as “of or pertaining to Satan” and win by virtue of that. In fact, I will do that next. C8) My opponent hasn't defined awesome First, I will cite my good friend thett3 when it comes to definitions. He was in a three-round debate and posted this during his second round after his opponent failed to define a term: “Pro did not offer a definition of sleeping around and since the next round is his last, he cannot. This means that the judge is absolutely bound to accept my definition as there is no competing advocacy against it...Remember, as the judge you are *bound* to accept my definition because Pro did not offer one..[...]” Obviously it is impossible at this point for my opponent to define a term, so I will do that now: Awesomeness is hereby defined, according to the Dictionary of Joseph, as “of or relating to Satan.” P1) If awesomeness is defined, anything not of or relating to Satan isn't awesome. P2) This debate isn't of or relating to Satan.C1) Therefore this debate isn't awesome. C9) I'm 9 contentions in and haven't addressed the image CLEARLY this isn't a debate not only because we're both clearly trolling, but I still haven't addressed his image. On top of that, he can't respond to any contentions that I'm making, anyway, so he still loses. C10) Nihilism “Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.” [7]This could all be baseless and there's reasoning to think that nothing has any objective meaning. Disproving this requires a positive claim and thus a burden of proof. Not only does this make the resolution impossible to affirm, but it places a moral obligation on our judges to vote "No" just to pay tribute to nihilism.C11) You just now realized that there was no C2Don't lie, you just realized that now. Fooled you! On top of it all, it was completely unintentional. Because of this, this debate cannot possibly be awesome. C12) I still haven't addressed the imageYou would think I would've addressed the image by now, but I haven't. C13) Ok, Fine, I'll address the image Pro claims the debate is awesome because this silly image is in it. However, this is a non-sequitur fallacy: he argues "If A, then B" without establishing this causal link. Moreover, the image is completely unreleastic. Bears don't wield guns, and I'm disguted that he would because gun crime is a serious, serious issue in this country [8]. Second, the bear is surfing a shark. This is a prime example of animal abuse. That poor shark! Male bears weigh between 125 and 600 lbs [9]. The world record for an American black bear is 880 pounds! Therefore, by voting to affirm you are not only endorsing animal abuse and the American gun culture, but you yourself are perpetuating it! Also, surfing sucks. It's a colossal waste of time when we could be doing other things such as, say, reading philosophy and yelling at a priori truths. [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] Ajabi during his debate with Tim and elsewhere [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...;[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...