Resolved- The costs of informing the public of the world ending 3 months prior outweigh the benefits

My opponent claims that I do not disprove the resolution. However, this is untrue. I specifically stated in my last argument that "Nowhere is it stated that the CON debater must prove the converse of the resolution true; rather, the con simply must prove the negative of the resolution true. That is, it is legitimate for me to win if I prove the following to be true: Resolved - The costs of informing the public of the world ending do NOT outweigh the benefits" Thus, in order to negate, all I have to do is prove that the resolution is not true. I need not prove that the benefits outweigh the costs, because there is no resolutional burden to do so. Rather, I simply must prove that the resolution is flawed. Here's why this is true: to vote PRO means that the resolution has been proven true in it's entirity. To vote CON means anything other than that. Thus, the CON side has multiple possible courses of action: I can either prove the converse of the resolution true, or I can simply prove the resolution NOT TRUE. That is all that I am obligated to do. Insofar as I meet that burden, you always vote CON. So, if there is even reasonable doubt that the resolution is not true, you vote CON, because a PRO vote means that the entirity of the resolution has been definitively proven true. Now on to the actual argumentation. Johnicle compares the "weight" of costs and benefits to the physical weight of human beings. However, this is a false analogy. When discussing the metaphysical "weight" of two things, the laws of physical weight cease to have meaning. Here is an example: the laws of nature tell us that if thing 1 weighs more than thing 2, and both are dropped from the same point at the same time with any amount of wind resistance, thing 1 will fall more quickly than thing 2. Don't believe me? Go drop a feather and a penny out of a window. The way this plays into the debate is as follows: if we drop the costs and the benefits. .. nothing happens. Because we CAN'T do that. Why not? Because they are not physical things, but rather metaphysical "things". Johnicle tries to use the physical laws of weight (that is, "something weighs more than nothing") in the context of this debate. However, since we aren't debating the PHYSICAL properties of costs and benefits (as this would be impossible) this argument CAN'T be true. The above is the ONLY argument my opponent provides in his last speech: that something weighs more than nothing. However, since I've proven that this only applies to physical weight and not metaphysical weight, you disregard this argument. This means that my opponent is left with no offense. Remember, we aren't discussing the physical laws of weight because costs and benefits are not physical. Johnicle may weigh more than his non-existant son, but we can't say that something abstract has more "weight" (that is, be more beneficial) than something else if we CAN'T compare the two. We know that Johnicle's non-existant son has no weight. However, the con simply holds that the costs and benefits can not be compared. The first reason they can't be compared is because no one put forth the benefits. Insofar as we assume there are no benefits, we can't weigh between the two; we don't KNOW what we're weighing if they don't exist. The warrant fot his was explicit: "you can't compare something to something which doesn't exist. " Although you may be able to do so in the physical world, you can not in the metaphysical world, so the argument still holds. This means that you can vote CON right now. But even if you don't buy that, the second and more important point goes TOTALLY uncontested. I explained that, "my opponent provides no way to weigh between the costs and the benefits. At the point at which we have no weighing mechanism to make a comparison between the two, he can't tell you that the costs outweigh the benefits. This is because it is an unwarranted claim; if we don't know how to weigh between the two, then it is impossible to say that one outweighs the other. " What this means is that since my opponent doesn't tell you how to weigh between costs and benefits (remember, we're not using a physical scale), we can not say that one outweighs the other. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, it is non-sensical to say that something carries more "weight" than something else. To use an example from the physical world, we can't say that Johnicle weighs more than me if we don't have a way to determine that to be true. Similarly, we can't say that the costs outweigh the benefits if we don't have a way to prove it true. All my opponent says is that we debate opinions, not facts. However, ONLY facts are what can give opinions any meaning; in a debate about abortion, someone who is pro-choice might state the FACT that banning abortions limit free choice of the mother, while someone who is pro-life would counter with the FACT that abortions kill fetuses or embryos. So, in order for any of my opponent's arguments to matter at all, he must provide SOME way to determine truth. But further, this argument doesn't take out my point that he gives no weighing mechanism, so if we can't weigh between the two, you can't definitively say that one outweighs the other. Since Johnicle doesn't give a weighing mechanism to determine that the costs have more "weight" than the benefits, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove the resolution true. My opponent NEVER sufficiently responded to this argument, so it has to be assumed to be true in the context of this round.