Resolved: In my opinion, green apples taste better than red apples.

blech! That's no fun. This has been made too easy. ------------------------------------------------ RE: CROSS EXAMINATION TACTICS ------------------------------------------------ Ladies and gentleman, I offered my opponent a simple means of providing evidence for his side in this debate. All he had to do was answer some SIMPLE questions. What on earth is confusing about a question like "How often do you eat apples?" In fact, I was even willing to allow him to post answers in the comment section. I offered my opponent an extremely gracious way to argue in this debate (as I would have been permitted to making assumptions otherwise), and he not only spat in my face, but yours as well for holding this debate in contempt. His only argument against the proposed cross examination was that he had no idea how I had intended to analyze his questions and that I could use these questions to provide invalid conclusions. I'm sorry, but that's BOGUS. In competition debates, since when are debaters required to tell their opponents how they intend to analyze the data provided during cross examination before said cross examination ensues? ABSOLUTELY NEVER. In LD debate, it was always the same. AFF would approach the front of the room, give his/her case, NEG would approach with Cross examination , AFF would sit down, NEG would give his/her case, AFF would Cross examine NEG, provide his/her rebuttal, NEG would provide a rebuttal, and then AFF would respond with the final debate. In that simple process, you'll note that there isn't ONE single point where either debater explains how EXACTLY they intend to utilize C/X before C/X. Now if you were judging a round and you saw one of the debaters REFUSE to have C/X with the other debater, what would that make you believe about the confidence of the other debater? My thoughts exactly. Furthermore, OF COURSE I could provide invalid conclusions (anyone can in any debate, including debates without C/X). THAT'S WHY MY OPPONENT IS HERE. He is HERE TO point out these invalid conclusions or any possible invalid conclusions that could come from my conclusions or questioning. What makes this situation appalling is that I had not only given him permission to post in the comment section, but he also had 2 rounds to refute anything I could say. ------------------------------ RE: BURDEN OF PROOF ------------------------------ Now with that out of the way, I shall quickly end the life of this "burden of proof" argument. Ladies and gentleman, what my opponent is suggesting is completely absurd. Neglecting the fact that his argument suffers from the negative proof fallacy (the resolution being true because there's no proof it's false, plus I could easily turn this logic around)(sorry about the fallacy jargon), he is suggesting that the burden of proof belongs to me. According to him, the AFF in any debate could simply walk up and say "The burden of proof belongs to the negative side so rather than provide an actual case, I'm simply going to rebut his/her arguments when the time comes. If Neg doesn't refute all of my refutations, I win by default." Now is it just me, or does that sound a bit awkward? Better yet, let me phrase it in a layman's situation: A man named Joe walks into a bar and claims Unicorns exist. A man named Maury takes notice of this claim and ask Joe "How do you know Unicorns exist." Joe responds by saying "How do you know Unicorns don't exist?" "Maury says "Hmm, well I don't have any evidence, but that doesn't answer my question. Joe responds by saying "Ha, then Unicorns exist, as you don't have any evidence to say they don't exist." In that situation, what sense does it make for Joe to initiate discourse by making a claim without backing it up and then demanding anyone who challenges him to prove otherwise? Shouldn't Joe provide reasons for his claim so that anyone who opposes him shall know what they are opposing? Most importantly, why should Joe's claim be taken as true? All of these factors dictate exactly what's wrong with my opponent's "BoP" argument. Simply put, he started this discussion so he is obligated to bring evidence to the table belongs. Through not doing this, he is not asserting the resolution by any level beyond saying his case is true simply because it is (begging the question). ---------------------------------- EVIDENCE FROM NEG --------------------------------- But nevertheless, I shall satisfy the audience with evidence rather than merely go the route I originally intended to go. PRO thought he'd be tricky through absurdly denying my proposition for Cross examination, but this is actually harmful to his case: 1) We must keep in mind that it is within PRO's best interest to win this debate as he is made it quite clear that I should lose this debate in his previous rounds. 2) With the above being noted, we must note that he has denied the opportunity to strengthen his case with the evidence that would be produced from my questions. Just imagine if he were able to answer every single one of my questions without compromising himself as well as exposing me on any attempt to simply provide invalid conclusions (as this would suggest that I really have no valid way of rebutting the resolution). 3) PRO should have nothing to hide. If he really believed that it was in his opinion that green apples tasted better than red apples, he should have been able to answer my questions without hesitation. Yet now that we know he is terrified of answering questions that simply attempt to get him to confirm to us whether or not he believes he is right or wrong (for crying out loud, I asked him WHY it was his opinion that he liked green apples over red apples and he couldn't even answer that?) while considering that he wishes to actually win this debate, THIS WOULD SERVE AS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE RESOLUTION IS FALSE in that PRO either thinks of red and green apples as being equal or actually prefers red apples over green apples. I must note PRO's Achilles heel in this debate was admittedly refusing to even attempt to present evidence (or a legitimate case for that matter). Since I have the only evidence in this debate, it is more likely that the resolution is false than it is true. Therefore, even if you don't buy my argument from the route I had intended to go earlier for the reasons beem0r pointed out, this argument should be sufficient. I now wait eagerly for my opponent's final round.