Debate.org version 3 will more likely than not be up and running by the time this debate concludes.

I would like to point out that the intended debate is subjective, as there are multiple members (opponents) participating. Therefore, all one has to go by are the wordings and definitions themselves. However, I will attempt to be fairly reasonable by most standards. For example, I will not infer that "running" in the resolution has to do with physical exercise or the like. There are numerous ways regarding how I can, and thus plan to, win this debate. Here is the first: "It is within my belief that debate. org version 3 will be up and running by the time this debate concludes. To define what I mean by this, I'm saying that the chances of debate. org version 3 being accessible before or at the time this debate concludes are at least 51%. " This debate entails not whether debate. org version 3[.0] will indeed "be up and running by the time this debate concludes. " Instead, it merely entails the probability of debate. org version 3[.0] being "up and running by the time this debate concludes. " Thus, whether or not it indeed is implemented or not is irrelevant. And simply because something may have a particular probability rating does not mean it is destined to (or to not) occur. Anything is possible, regardless of minute probability. Therefore, regardless of whether or not version 3[.0] is indeed "up and running by the time this debate concludes" is largely irrelevant. This debate focuses on its probability, not whether or not the event indeed occurs. How does my opponent quantify this probability? It is seemingly within the belief of the instigator that version 3 will be accessible on debate. org by the time this debate concludes. I cannot claim my opponent does not have this belief. However, my opponent cannot prove to indeed have this belief. Still, in essence, my opponent is predicting this potential future event (regarding debate. org version 3 being accessible) to be true. It is only a matter of faith to have confidence and strong belief in the currently unknown. And faith, being anything that cannot currently be explicitly proven, is not a valid argument in debate, as the future has not yet occurred. Thus, as the future has yet to occur in this reality, anything can be assumed as possible to occur, rather than intrinsically inevitable. I question (a) whether or not my opponent indeed has this belief, and (b) whether or not my opponent can prove this future event to hold truth. "The webmaster stated that version 3 would be up by the end of July…it is long past the end of July…either something unexpected came up or that the webmaster is simply doing some extra insignificant tweaks. " Voters beware; my opponent begins by using a fallacious statement, assuming that the webmaster must hold truth. As members have already seen, this in itself is not necessarily true. Thus, the webmaster is not to be considered holding truth all of the time. And even if every statement issued by the webmaster has been true before any talk of a newer version, the potential for the webmaster to have false statements still exists. Simply put, the webmaster might be wrong. Seemingly, my opponent is using the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, the appeal or argument to authority. To apply this to this debate, it is unreasonable to assume that because the newer version was supposed to be out in July (although obviously was not), that it therefore is going to be out sooner rather than later. Essentially, the webmaster is (or has the potential to be) both (a) not always correct, and (b) when wrong, not always closer to more right than more wrong (i. e. when claiming the newer version to be available on debate. org in July, though a false statement, does not mean debate. org version 3.0 will necessarily be available closer to July from the present than, for example, October). Speaking of webmasters, it is also rather difficult to tell who exactly the webmaster is. Clarification was not given in the opening argument of my opponent. For what could be, my opponent could be referring to the member HansMeyer (claiming to be a certified webmaster), or Kleptin, or perhaps Webmaster. It could also be Phil or Crystal on debate. org. It could also be Yraelz or even my opponent, Logical-Master (assuming same entity as Kleptin) in this debate. "It is reasonable for us to assume that debate. org version 3 should be functioning any day now. .. further serves as being evidence since the webmaster has not posted a note to the right of the main page as he usually does to inform us of a massive delay. .. it has been under development since last year … more massive delays are … unlikely. " Seemingly, the argumentation used by my opponent is based upon a false premise. It is NOT reasonable to assume that debate. org version 3[.0] should be operating sooner rather than later. Evidence does not necessarily constitute as proof. In order for something to be certain, proof is essential. Though it may serve as evidence, by abstaining from posting notes on the right of the main page, it does not constitute proof that further delay is unlikely. Other factors and variables could be at play here. For example, the webmaster could be on vacation. Or it might have been made illegal to post on the right side of the main page. Perhaps congress has passed new, secret legislation preventing debate. org from posting on the right side of the main page. This brings in two major points. Firstly, the main point is that it can be unknown as for why no notes have been posted recently on the right side of the main page. Absence of evidence is not proof. Secondly, as my opponent may undoubtedly agree, proper and logical legislation has not been functioning within adequate parameters in the recent past. I could even go so far as saying that, because of this inept property of congress, one could even use inductive reasoning to say congress might have done the same on debate. org, preventing any further notes on the right side of the main page. The main sub-point of this particular point is that inductive reasoning can be and has the potential to be rather subjective. It remains arbitrary to individual discretion to a large extent. However, my opponent is claiming that, merely because no further notes have been posted, and that debate. org version 3[.0] has been under development for many months now, more delays remain unlikely. This is inductive reasoning, using and examining patterns, essentially making generalizations from individual instances. Logic is not insured with such reasoning techniques. This debate ought to use deductive reasoning to be ideal, instead, in order to derive more explicit conclusions. Reasonable inductive reasoning dictates that, since it has been this long after the projected launch(es), it will more likely than not be even longer. The probability is not raised simply because the days are progressing since it was supposed to be launched. Though my opponent might use the full three days for each round, I remind that this debate no longer focuses on if version 3.0 is implemented by that time, but instead the inherent probability of it being implemented by that time. I anxiously await the conclusion of this debate, Oboeman.