New debate.org website (version 3) will probably not be online till June 2008!

I'm appalled that the PRO is referring to me as the fallacious beast. Indeed, this debate IS crawling with logical fallacies, but I assure you that none of them came until the PRO's second round. I would surmise that his senses have betrayed him so much to the point that he cannot detect the nauseating fallacious stench which is protruding from his mere presence here. Perhaps with some advice, he'll be sure to shower after this debate. If not, I'd advise those with weak constitutions to steer clear of this page. If you intend to agree with my opponent's definition argument regardless of what I say, skip down to the part labeled "4 POINTS." Before I start, I insist on getting this dictionary business out of the way. Black's Law Dictionary is a dictionary used for legal trials as well as formal argumentation. I cited it not because I thought people may not have understood what probably meant, but rather to clarify on how I would be addressing my opponent's case. I advise that you not conclude that my opponent's definitions (which are cited by an inferior dictionary) somehow disprove my definitions as those definitions are not specifically made for the purpose of debate. Onto my opponent's case: First, the PRO attempts to advocate that I have redefined his case. He suggest that the first flaw in my line of reason is that I assume that something of probability requires probable evidence. At the very least, this kind of evidence is required (in the context of this debate). Furthermore (and more importantly), given that the form of evidence my opponent's case presented was evidence that insinuated the date of debate.org's update being probable, the PRO did just as I insinuated. Having done this, he has no reason to challenge my claim , thus is simply wasting space. Next, the PRO attempts to dismiss my definition through use of the non sequitur and false dichotomy fallacies. Below is the PRO's argument in the form of a syllogism: 1)I was referring to probability rather than fact. 2)The CON's definition uses the word fact. 3)Therefore, the CON's definition doesn't apply to this argument. The first premise attributes to the false dichotomy side of his argument. Just because probability is mentioned, it does mean that a fact isn't being implied. In this case, my opponent is insisting factuality on the matter of version 3 of debate.org; he is insinuating that it is CERTAINLY probable that the new version of debate.org will be uploaded by June. Thus, he is implying the notion to be a fact. The Second premise attributes to the non sequitur fallacy. Indeed, the term "fact" is mentioned, but that does not lead one to conclude that it excludes the term probability. As I've explained above, a fact is being implied in the resolution. With these two problems being noted, my opponent's argument falls apart. As for my opponent's definition, it does not contradict my definition and isn't the definition I used. I cited the term "probable evidence", not "probably." As for the slippery slope which I am being accused of, I insure you that I have not committed this fallacy. Merely going by laymen terms, to prove something to be probable, one needs evidence which at least has the essence of probability. Anyway, to directly address this accusation, let us examine the PRO's claim with his own words: Yraelz:"Dictionary.com also lists about 10 other definitions, but I fail to see where any of them define probably as "a fact". Thus fallacious beast employs the slippery slope fallacy, to jump to the conclusion that to proves something probably true one requires "probable evidence", simply because they sound alike. " Syllogism form: 1)CON is defining probability as fact. 2)None of the definitions from my source define probability as fact. 3)Therefore, CON is using the slippery slope fallacy to jump to the conclusion that "to prove something probably true, one requires probable evidence", simply because they sound alike. Now I've already clarified on the problem with the first premise, so I'll just skip to the other problems with this argument. First, this argument is non sequitur as premises "one" and "two" don't logically lead to premise "three." Furthermore, the PRO indirectly acknowledges this as he adds "simply because they sound alike" at the end of his conclusion. Why would he need to do this? Because the previous premises have nothing to do with his conclusion. Furthermore, that addition at the end is a straw man of my actual argument as I've never actually used (or implied) the "simply because they sound alike" part as a premise in any argument which I've made in round 1 (or this round for that matter). "4 POINTS" Now here's the funny thing about the PRO's case: The PRO has rejected the 4 arguments I provided to attack his side of the resolution. His reason for this is that he believes my definition of probable doesn't apply to his case. Well, the funny thing is that EVEN IF IT DOESN'T, my four arguments still serve to present variables which would discredit the notion that version 3 appearing by June is "most likely; presumably." The mere fact that he has ignored all four of these arguments should be enough reason for you to vote in favor of my case. Re Three Pronged Conclusion: 1)I've addressed this evidence through attacking it with 4 different arguments. My opponent has blatantly dropped these arguments. 2)Actually, my conclusion is highly detrimental to the PRO's argument. I shall label the five different statuses for a claim. Level 1) Impossible. Level 2) Improbable Level 3) Possible Level 4) Probable Level 5) Definite. Although it's true that both level 2 and 4 imply possibility, they are both MORE than just possibility. Based on the ambiguous and limited amount of evidence which we have, my point was that the claim concerning the new update was merely at the level of possibility; that we can't conclude anything else on the matter at the moment. Furthermore, seeing as how the PRO was unable to rebut my four arguments, I would certainly urge this as being the case. As for not ruling out the possibility of the update occurring before June, this being how the resolution was defined would damage my opponent's case tremendously. As you can see, the webmaster makes no claims about the update possibly occurring before or after June. To put it quite simply, he just suggest that it will occur in June (not before). In other words, my opponent has basically admitted that he has not presented valid evidence for his case (rather, he has actually presented evidence against his case). Because of this, you have yet another significant reason to vote CON. 3a) Straw man. I was referring to online performance rather than debate.org in its entirety (also, this wasn't the meat of my claim). 3b) Not true in the slightest. Keeping the beta version of the new website online (but not easily accessible to users) allows website construction to be done anywhere (and by any staff member) (both at home and the office) and is a practice which most companies (especially the ones which emphasize on websites) employ. That said, I realize that many of you don't like semantics arguments (hence why I didn't make this last argument the focus of my case). For those that don't, feel free to ignore this argument as my case (by no means) hinges on it. Instead, make sure to pay special attention to the four arguments my opponent dropped as well as how my opponent has essentially admitted to providing evidence against his case. Both of these errors on my opponent's part should be your main reason for voting CON. Your move!