RESOLVED: The phrase "Equal Opportunity" refers to probability, not possibility.

Allow me to begin by briefly bringing up 3 parts of the last round that I just had to point out. Afterward I will move on to making my argument showing why Con has yet to say anything that negates my case. Attacking the Straw Man 2 questions for Con: In the beginning of the last round I stated: “All of these possibilities together form the potential. This is an important distinction because possibility in the singular form refers to something that either exists or it doesn’t”. Exactly where did I make the argument that choosing one possibility stops another possibility from existing? In the baseball analogy in my last round I stated: “If it did, then saying that the freshman team had a better opportunity to win going into the bottom of the ninth inning would be false, because both teams still had a possibility to win” How was I ignoring the fact that improbable does not = impossible? Pro Life Con states: “Pro life literally means in favor of being born”. Con completely made this up. His own definition according to what he provided is: “in favor of the period during which something is functional”. There is nothing in this definition about being born, it refers to the period between birth and death. This shows that someone who is for capital punishment would technically not be Pro-Life according to this definition. However as my source demonstrated, the phrase “Pro-life” is not used that way, it only refers to abortion. The point of this is to show that cherry picking a bunch of definitions for every individual word in this debate accomplishes little besides putting the readers to sleep. Con should provide more examples to make his point. Definition of Equal Opportunity In the beginning of the last round Con gives us a literal definition of Equal Opportunity: “having the same quantity of favorable circumstances to lead to a possibility” However, in the end of the round Con gives us a new definition: “the same quantity of possibilities, due to a favorable combination of circumstances” I am not going to bother refuting either of these until Con can figure out which definition he is arguing. Moving on… Reclarification of Equal Opportunity Con restates the definition of Opportunity: “A possibility, due to a favorable combination of circumstances” I never argued against the concept of this definition, Con simply hasn’t understood my argument. To clarify, the only difference between a possibility and an opportunity is whether the circumstances that lead to it are positive. In my baseball analogy we would say that the freshman team had an opportunity to win, because they were up by 4 runs late in the game. However we would not say that the varsity team (who was losing) has an opportunity to win, we would say that there is still a possibility they can win. Opportunity doesn’t fit, because their circumstances are not favorable. Favorable circumstances are what makes a possibility an opportunity. Taking this further, suppose I was to claim that all Americans have an equal opportunity to succeed. The reason why the word opportunity is used here is because America is considered a great place to succeed. We are the wealthiest nation in the world, we have a strong functioning government, etc… Therefore the fact that we live in America is considered a favorable circumstance which leads to the possibility of our success. Even people born in the worst neighborhoods, live under this favorable circumstance, so succeeding in America is still considered an opportunity that we all share. To summarize, an opportunity is simply a possibility that exists because of favorable circumstances. If the circumstances were unfavorable, it would still be a possibility, but not an opportunity. Since this debate does not focus on the circumstances being favorable or unfavorable, opportunity and possibility are almost interchangeable. Measuring a Possibility Con claims that a possibility can be measured. To support this argument he gives an example of 3 doors, each one representing a different possibility. He concludes that there are 3 possibilities, which is supposed to affirm his argument. However Con never measured any of these possibilities, all he did was count the number of them. One question Con must answer is this: how do you measure a possibility? Consider the earlier example: “There is a strong possibility that it will rain”. What is it that makes the possibility strong? When faced with this point, Con goes on an obfuscatory rant saying that a strong possibility would be “a higher quality percentile”. In other words, a higher probability. To further make this clear allow me to demonstrate the obvious. If the probability of rain was 80%, then rain would be considered a strong possibility. If the probability of rain was 1%, this would not be considered a strong possibility. Clearly the difference between a strong possibility, and a weak possibility, is the probability of it. The point here is that the only way to measure a possibility is to determine its probability. This is a fact that Con seems to deny. The reason why this is, is because probability is what makes something a possibility. If the probability of an event occurring is 0% then it is not a possibility. But if that probability is 0.01%, it is now considered a possibility. Now if the probability is 10%, it is still a possibility. If it is 99%, it is still a possibility. Words that describe these possibilities don’t change the fact that they are still a possibility. Therefore when determining if something is a possibility, the probability does not matter as long as it is above 0%. That is why possibility either exists (if the probability is above 0%) or it doesn’t exist (the probability is 0%). There is no way to measure a possibility without referring to the probability of it occurring, because the probability is what makes it a possibility. Communication Now let’s consider for a moment what we are talking about when trying to determine what a phrase refers to. Consider the following sentence: “Mary is a beautiful girl” In this sentence let’s ask ourselves, does the phrase refer to the fact that Mary is beautiful, or the fact that she is a girl? Well, let’s imagine I challenge Con to debate me on the resolution “Mary is a beautiful girl”. Con accepts, then proceeds to refute my resolution by arguing that she is not a girl. Clearly this would not have been the intention of the debate, otherwise I would not have included the word beautiful because by doing so I am giving myself an unnecessary point to establish. So If I were to challenge him to this resolution I would clearly be referring to her beauty, not her gender. Equal Opportunity Since Opportunity is a possibility (ie: possibility of being successful) and equal is a measurement which refers to probability, the “Equal” becomes the description the same way “beautiful” was the description for Mary. If it was not generally agreed that all Americans have an opportunity to succeed, then this would need to be established before we can debate whether that opportunity is equal. Therefore when someone uses the term “Equal Opportunity” it is quite obvious that they are not referring to the fact that the opportunity exists, they are referring to whether that opportunity is equal. Since equal is a measurement of the possibility, and a possibility can not be measured in any relevant way without referring to probability, it is obvious that Equal is referring to Probability. Therefore the phrase “Equal Opportunity” clearly refers to probability.