A Joe Biden/Elizabeth Warren ticket would defeat a Hillary Clinton/_________ ticket in the primaries

1) Burden of Proof on each side"Your position in this debate is to argue that there is a 100% chance"Which I am doing. I am also arguing my case that far better than you are arguing the case you are suppossed to be arguing, that there is a zero percent chance of Biden/Warren beating Hillary/_______."I interpret this debate so that the BoP is on Pro since their role in this debate is to prove that there is a 100% chance. "Actually you didnt.... In your (epically failed) attempt at trolling, you only ever stated what my BoP is, not that the entire BoP is on me. You afforded me the opportunity to define what YOUR OWN burden of proof is, which I have done, and now you are paying the price for it XD"You cannot prove my argument 100% false"Reality itself states that your argument is 100% false, because there is no reason why an alien who could consume planets would come all the way to Earth just to play football in human form, and then suck at it. Your trolling is bad, and you should feel bad"so it is possible that I would have a brain"It may be possible, but judging from your arguments, your win ratio, and your trolling abilities, it is probable that you dont have a brain ;)"you cannot create new rules in R2 since I have accepted the debate that is unfair on me since I did not know that you would do that."Well that's too bad for you :) Like I said, I know how to play this game far better than you."It is like me doing a God debate and suddenly changing the defininitions and stating that my opponnet cannot argue against the definitions in any way halfway through the debate - that's just unfair."Except I didnt actually change the definitions of anything, I only elaborated on what YOUR Burden of Proof is, since you neglected to do so in the first place, and also locking down your ability to try to wriggle your way out of it ;)"New rules aren't allowed half way through a debate"There was no rule in the first round stating that I couldnt add new rules halfway through the debate, and your interpretation of the debate never said that I couldn't add new rules halfway through the debate XD"And by the way, just because you have been on this site longer - it does not mean that you are a better troll than me"No, the reason I'm a better troll than you because I'm in the actual Hall of Fame on this site predominantly FOR trolling: http://www.debate.org..."I am certain that I am better."If you're the better troll than me then how come IM the one who turned the tables on YOU and now YOU are the one whining about it like a baby? :)==========================================================================================================To summarize the debate, It is my duty, as interpreted by con, to prove that there is a 100% chance that a Biden/Warren ticket would beat a Clinton/__________ ticket. I have provided substantial evidence in round 1 indicating that there is a 100% chance of this happening, ALL of which con has failed to dispute, and has therefore conceded.Con on the other hand had to argue why there is a 0% chance of a Biden/Warren ticket beating a Clinton/__________ ticket in the primaries, and he has failed to do that spectacularly. He has cited no evidence at all that Clinton + ? would ALWAYS beat Biden + Warren. Instead, con has spent the entire time disputing me changing the rules of the debate, even though he did exactly that in round one. Con concedes all arguments made in round 1, and therefore, you should vote pro. Better luck next time con ;)