I am debating myself

Opening comments Before I begin, I would like the audience to acknowledge that my opponent has not made a statement against my proposal that both parties share the burden of proof. Therefore according to etiquette he has accepted the proposal. If my argument are found unsubstantial this debate shall be declared as a draw unless Con develops a sound constructive argument to disprove the resolution. I would first like to point out that I have not violated my own rule. I stated that Round 1 is for acceptance and definitions. This means I have never stated that definitions were limited to Round, it means I stated that Round 1 was limited to acceptance and definitions (no arguments were to be presented during this time). Since my opponent failed to take the responsibility to defining the remaining terms left to ambiguity I took the responsibility. Addressing my opponents argument one I will now like to address my opponents claim that my first argument is a paradox. The resolution for our current debate and my debate within the debate are both not necessarily self contained. Note that both debates are discussing whether a subject is debating with himself in which case is me. This has yet to completely address my opponents attack but will help add clarity in defending my argument. I will now deconstruct my opponents refutation: Premise 1: In order to legitimately debate one self there must be questioning of a topic. Premise 2: In this case the topic is whether he is questioning himself. Premise 3: He is questioning whether the resolution is possible. Premise 4: He cannot prove the resolution because he is not sure that he can debate himself. (derived from Premise 2 and Premise 3) Conclusion: The resolution is unverifiable. There are a number of problems with this attempt to refute my contention. The third premise is false and assumed. Part of a resolution deals with whether an absolute or possibility is being asked for. My opponent has changed the resolution to attack my point by stating my resolution deals with possibility of itself rather than whether it is currently case. This is a Straw Man Fallacy, which is where one changes an argument, refutes it then claims the original argument was refuted. Even when this logically fallacy is not taken into consideration the rest of the argument does not hold. Just because I am at the moment unsure of whether I can debate myself (which was not actually the case, my debate was about whether I am) does not constitute any reasoning why I cannot prove the resolution. If one were to question whether he owned a television would that automatically mean you can assume it is not possible for him to verify it? Even if he found a television in his home that he has the credit card receipt (in his name) for? This is absurd. Furthermore this takes the false assumption that I have already pointed out in the previous paragraph; this makes an derivation on the false Premise 3. Lastly the conclusion is misleading and irrelevant to the argument. I take it as my opponent is using this as a case against my main contentions (if he answers no to this, he has already admitted its irrelevance. Verifiability is not a prerequisite for a debate. There are many debates concerning the existence of God. The existence of God is inherently unverifiable. If one argues that God is verifiable, by ignoring that he is inherently not one could make a case. If my opponent decides to go down this path and expand let me remind the audience that the resolution for my own personal debate and this current debate are the same. Does my opponent content that this current debate is not actually a debate because it is claimed to be unverifiable? Addressing my opponents argument two My opponents second argument is that because it cannot be proven whether or not my questioning of a resolution is genuine it cannot be proven whether or not I am debating myself. *Please note that this is simply deconstructive and does not give my opponent proof (which he too carries the burden of) against my resolution of the current debate. Legitimate belief in an opinion (and in this case a self-questioning because one entity holds an opinion on both sides) is another pre-requisite for a debate Con has arbitrarily declared. I ask my audience whether they believe it is possible for someone to debate an opinion if they do not genuinely believe in it. If both sides do not believe in the opinion he is arguing is it impossible to have a debate? If an individual does not truly question a topic does that mean he cannot discuss it critically with himself? I believe that it is self-evident that the premise genuinity is not required to have a debate. This is not from the definition nor is it sound. Addressing my opponents argument three My opponents argument is as follows: Premise 1: The resolution is temporal. It refers to an event happening in a particular time frame. Premise 2: My opponent has to take time to respond to me and sleep during the time period of the resolution. Premise 3: My opponent cannot be debating himself while responding and sleeping. Conclusion: My opponent cannot be debating with himself in the given time period. Premise 1 is true, as I have presented it originally and Premise 2 is undeniable as long as am a mortal (which is not necessarily true and is assumed). The real mistake is the third premise that states it is not possible for me to sleep and be debating. A debate does not exist only at the moments a point or argument from one side is being made. It is absurd to say that the time in between opposing contentions being made the debate cease to exist. Does my opponent currently contend that he is not having a debate with me because he is not actively thinking and making a point about it at this exact moment. In a debate there are at least two opposing ideas that take turns being developed. The whole entire time period between the proposition of a resolution to a conclusion of the case is when a debate is being debated. I can add new points and pieces of evidence to a topic I am discussing or arguing with myself (debating) at any time. Till I have stopped questioning myself and have concluded a solid opinion for or against the resolution the debate is still in effect. I do not necessarily have to be debating my previous topic either. I could be questioning my career choice or any topic. So therefore I am still debating with myself as I am typing this response; my debate has not been concluded and is still on going along with my many other self-debates. Concluding statements My opponent has failed to refute my proof of the resolution and has not presented any proof himself. I have stated and properly defend my case. For these simple reasons I urge the voters to vote Pro. I have had an enjoyable debate with my opponent and I thank him for being my opponent. I also thank the audience and the voters for reading and considering my cases. Now I am off to bed (: