Pro has a Heavier Burden Than Con When Debating on Debate.org if Pro Goes First in a Debate.

RE: Scenario #1: That is PRO's choice, just as forfeiting a round is PRO's choice. You canbnot say PRO has a bigger burden simply because "PRO might decide to put a bigger burden on himself. " Not that your example constituted a heavier burden, but I'll get to that later. RE: Scenario #2: My opponent argues that since CON gets the last word, this makes PRO have a heavier burden. This does not constitute a heavier burden [defined as "more to argue" in this debate, see PRO R1, as I pointed out last round]. Now let's look at this very debate more carefully, and show why it doesn't even follow this supposed rule. My opponent made points in R1. I responded to his R1 points, then made my own in my R1. My opponent decided not to respond to the majority of my points, and simply went on making new points. I am now responding to all his new points. At the end of this, we'll have argued the same amount of stuff. .. except I've argued my R1 points, while my opponent hasn't. Thus, I've in fact argued MORE than my opponent in this debate, though it was by his own choice to not address my R1 arguments. RE: "Con doesn't have to make new arguments" In that debate, it's true enough that there is no reason to vote affirmative. There is also no reason to vote negative. No one in that hypothetical debate presented anything that should convince people one way or another. Let's look at a familiar scenario of mine to show this [twas in my R1, which wasn't addressed]. Resolution: Ice cream is good PRO: Ice cream is good because lizards are reptiles CON: That is faulty logic In that debate, it is CON's job to NEGATE the resolution. That is to say, he must argue for the negative of it, in this case, "Ice cream is not good. " Since the audience has no reason to be swayed to either side of the resolution, no one should bother voting. CON must argue FOR the negative of the resolution. CON does not JUST have to address PRO's points. As shown above, refutation is not enough for negation, as CON still leaves plenty of room for ice cream to be good, making no argumesnts to show otherwise. Next, my opponent makes the point that "What if the resolution tries to prove two things? " Resolution: "Pizza is lovable AND delicious" First, I'll say this was a poor example, since if a food is delicious, it's lovable. Anyway, the negative position would be "Pizza is either not lovable, not delicious, or both. " Now let's return to a R1 point of mine. Now we should consider the opposite and negative debate. Resolution: "Pizza is either not lovable, not delicious, or both. " Now PRO's arguing for the exact same thing CON was, so we cannot say that PRO as a general rule has tougher wording to argue. Especially since PRO chooses the wording. My opponent consistently attempted to argue that CON doesn't have to actually make any arguments. However, this is simply not true. The burden of proof lies on both individuals - whoever proves their side of the resolution will win. Also, keep in mind the semantics argument from last round. Even if the debate was just PRO makes some points/CON refutes them, neither of them has more to argue, since CON must argue all of PRO's points. Even in this case, they argue the same amount of stuff. And my opponent himself defines a heavier burden as "more to argue. " I have indeed negated the resolution. My opponent failed to address the bulk of my R1. In this very debate, I have argued more points than my opponent.