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

Alright, looking over CON's case, the main problem with it is that he is simply criticizing my position without actually strengthening his own. In other words, he is all offense and no defense. However, I submit that it is CON's burden to show why his position outweighs mine. Sure, you could acknowledge all of the so-called "flaws" he has pointed out in my own, but a defended position beats a non defended position any day of the week. CON: "In response to my opponent arguing that he believes the resolution is true, my opponent can't prove that he believes the resolution is true, so HA! Rebuttal: Red herring fallacy. My opponent previously finished telling you that this debate was about the proving that "Version 3" will be running in time for this debate's conclusion, so why on earth would he insist that I prove that I believe something? Not only that, but if you look at how I structured my R1, my clarification on the matter of me having this belief was not part of my ONE and only contention.. Thus, not only is this a red herring fallacy, but strawman as well. Therefore, you have no logical reason to consider his rebuttal here when making your verdict. CON: "My opponent said the webmaster holds all truth, but the webmaster could easily be wrong" Rebuttal: Once more, my opponent resorts to the straw man fallacy. I request that he point precisely to the place where I insinuated that the webmaster holds truth all of the time. Unfortunately for him, there is no such place in my R1. Furthermore, my conclusion is what I am trying to prove (which is that V3 will more likely than not be up and running by the time of this debate's conclusion), hence, if I am to argue that "The webmaster said something", and then am to conclude the aforementioned conclusion, then it is quite clear that I am by no means insisting that the webmaster's word is absolute as I wouldn't be speaking in terms of likelihood. Rather, I'd simply come out and state that debate.org version 3 will DEFINITELY come out by the time of this debate's conclusion. Furthermore, the webmaster could have very well been wrong, but this doesn't change the fact that he is of the highest authority and of the most knowledge concerning this website (hence, why he is called the WEBMASTER), therefore, is the most credible source we debaters have access to. CON: "We don't know who the webmaster is" Rebuttal: The Webmaster is either Phil or Crystal. Though what relavance is there here? Unless CON can provide some conclusive information that is associated with their identities and in fact changes the probability of the new version of debate.org being released later rather than sooner, than this is a red herring and is to be dismissed immediately. CON: "It is unreasonable for us to assume that debate.org V3 will be up sooner rather than later. And evidence doesn't constitute as proof, so just because you have some pretty good evidence (that the webmaster has abstained from posting notes), it doesn't PROVE that debate.org version 3 will likely be up and running. Rebuttal: Quite the contrary. It is rather reasonable for us to assume that debate.org V3 would be up sooner rather than later. As insisted in the previous round, some of my points may need elaboration, and this is apparently one of the aforementioned points in need of elaboration. It is a fact that the web master has been working on the 3rd version of this website for nearly a year now. We must also take into consideration that when developing something, the probability of it being completed increases the more it is being worked on. For instance, if one is to work on putting together an exercising device, the probability of it being completed increases in direct correlation to the more steps one finishes in completing it. This is simply because the difficulty of the job lessens upon the completion of each step( in other words, the less work their is, the easier the job becomes). One could insist the same when taking into account the third version of debate.org. In response, the contender shall no doubt point out possibilities such as the webmaster getting sick, getting tired of debate.org, or something along those lines, but merely citing possibilities will do him no good, because as even HE pointed out, this debate is about determining probability (and as you can see, the above explanation insist probability), and last I recall, probability gladly welcomes possibilities. If my opponent wishes to make any argument on these other possibilities, then he will need to provide sufficient evidence that there is a 50% or more chance of these other possibilities occurring. Otherwise, you've got absolutely no reason to consider such an argument. As for evidence not constituting as proof, I fear that my opponent is going on a path to nowhere with this statement. I wholeheartedly agree that evidence does not constitute as proof, hence, why I have "likelihood" built into the resolution. here to determine what is most likely, which can be done without conclusive evidence as we're simply going off of which side has the strongest evidence. CON: "Deductive reasoning is far too subjective for us in this debate" Rebuttal: What is the meaning of "this" debate? One could try and maintain that position for ANY debate. Now, I will concede that there is some level of interpretation involved in inductive reason (though heck, it is a fact that deductive reasoning relies on how reality is INTERPRETED in the first place), but so what? My opponent's job is to prove that my position is illogical. Unless he intends to argue that inductive reasoning is inadmissible PERIOD, then I see it as fair game in this debate. Besides, my opponent seems content with using it under the guise that he is using "REASONABLE" inductive reasoning, thus, I shall submit that I am using "reasonable" inductive reasoning as well. Speaking of reasonable inductive reasoning . . . CON: "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." Rebuttal: The problem with my opponent's argument is that he never really shows how the above premise would lead to the conclusion that debate.org V3 will more likely than not take even longer (thus, he really doesn't possess any defense in this debate). All he does is label the word "reasonable" on it and request that you take his argument into consideration rather than mine. Ladies and gentleman, I've made it clear as to how the above premise leads to my conclusion, ergo, my argument should be taken into consideration before his, although I will allow him the opportunity for elaboration. In the mean time . . . he says that inductive reasoning should not be used in this debate and that we should use deductive reasoning, however, at no point does he even ATTEMPT to provide a deductive argument. Rather, he uses an inductive argument. I provided him with the opportunity to clarify on this during C/X, but essentially, it is as I had feared. This is nothing more than a contradiction. I challenge my opponent to provide a deductive argument that upholds his side of the resolution. CON: "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." Rebuttal: Quite false. The addition of 12 days adds on to the time limit. I could have easily continued this debate on the day I started it as well as responded as quickly and promptly as possible, but this would merely make it less likely that debate.org V3 would have activated by the time of this debate's conclusion as less time would be allowed for this site to be properly maintenanced.