Resolved: Everything is Debatable

As I figured, pro simply relies on semantics and saying that because we're debating this statement, then everything must be debatable. I'll respond to this more in detail in a bit, but I'll start with my arguments first.First, since no definitions were offered, I'll offer my own.Everything: "every thing there is : all that exists" (1)Prefer this definition becausea) it's closest to modern usage in a normal conversation, thus most likely to be applicable to the meaning of the resolutionb) closest to most definitions of the word, meaning that it's textually the most accurate definitionThis means that my opponent has a literally impossible burden: he must prove that there isn't anything in existence that is objectively true. All I need to do is provide one instance of something not being debatable in order for you to negate the resolution. Thus, my arguments will simply consist of things that are objectively true.Truth Number One: One plus one equals two.This one is simple to explain. If I take one object and I add it with another object, I now possess two objects. This demonstrates the simple math that if you add one and one together, it's impossible to come up with anything other than two. I can extend this into an infinite number of other simple math problems, but I'll keep it at this one to be simple enough.Truth Number Two: WebsiteThe website we are currently using is known as Debate.org. This isn't a debatable thing as it's merely the assigned domain name of the overall website we are currently using. Being known as other things ("DDO", "The Nerdy Website", etc.) doesn't change it's official identity as Debate.org.Truth Number Three: UsernameIt's simply true that the username associated with my identity on Debate.org is Zaradi. No other user on this website has my username as username are unique: there can't be two people with the same username. And as no one else shares my account, this username is my identity on this website.Truth Number Four: GroundsIt's objectively true that TheJuniorVarsityNovice is advocating for the Pro position in this debate and that I am advocating for the Con position in this debate. Our sides have been locked in at the beginning of the debate, meaning that we are pressed into defending our positions. And don't let him say "Well I can always just advocate for the other side which would make me either Pro or Con". That doesn't make him either side, it just makes him a crappy debater for not being able to construct a cohesive argument.Truth Number Five: Burden of ProofIt's objectively true that the Burden of Proof for this debate is to be split between the two of us. As per his specific Round One clarifications, it was that the definitions are things that are debatable and the burden of proof is not, meaning that accepting the debate means that I accept that the Burden of Proof is split and not something else. Since I have not contested it, it becomes objectively true for this debate.Truth Number Six: RoundsIt's objectively true that there are four rounds attributed to this debate. That isn't to say that we're spending four rounds discussing the topic, as the first round was an acceptance round, but rather that in total, there are four times where we are required to imput something into the text box for our speaking rounds, meaning four rounds. I can provide more truths upon request, but I have a feeling that the bulk of the debate isn't actually going to be taking place here so I won't bother to continue for now. Let's go and address his argument.Pro's Argument:First, his argument is assuming the conclusion is valid before we even begin, making it circular. His argument is that because we're debating whether everything is debatable or not, thus everything is debatable. Why? Because his conclusion needs to be true in order for his premise, us debating about whether everything is debatable or not, in order for it to be able to support the conclusion.Second, he doesn't actually provide any kind of warrant for his argument. He says that because we're debating if everything is debatable or not that everything must be debatable without actually giving any kind of reasoning for why this is true. He says that it's because the resolution is an all inclusive statement that it's true but that doesn't actually prove anything, nor does he explain why this proves it.Third, his argument seems to contradict the definition I provide for my arugment. This is where you look to the two reasons I provide for why you're preferring my textbook definition of everything over his concept of everything.Fourth, this isn't actually an offensive argument. He uses his justification of "we're debating whether everything is debatable" and impacts it by saying "To win this debate pro must simply show that there is some question or statement that is literally impossible to debate.". Assuming he meant con by that, since Pro's BOP is to show that everything is debatable, he's using it as a measure to try and shift the proving grounds onto me, which is a defensive argument. This means that, as per his round one clarifications that the burden of proof is split, he doesn't actually have any offense to fulfill his side of the BoP, meaning that I'm winning by default since I'm upholding mine in six different areas.Fifth, his argument is abusive as hell. If I accept that his argument is true, then the resolution becomes a truism by his case. This leaves me no ground in order to substantively respond to the resolution. This is harmful for debate as an activity because a) it becomes unfair for me since he has 100% of the arguing ground and I have 0%, meaning that the debate can never be judged fairly. The point of debate is to determine who is the better debater, which becomes impossible if one side is skewed unfairly, and b) it harms the educational value of debate because I can't actually substantively discuss the resolution, meaning that we can't really learn anything in regards to the resolution. And education is important because it's the only thing that gives debate out-of-round value. Vote him down for running this kind of argument to disentivise this kind of debate from happening.Conclusion:I'm proving six different examples as to how everything isn't debatable by showing six different things that aren't debatable. All I need to do is show that one of them is true in order to win the debate. It's on Pro to respond to all six of them and be winning on all six of them. But even then I'm responding to his argument in five different ways, two of them offensive arguments, giving me a total of eight different ways for me to win the resolution, and I'm also showing how his argument isn't even fulfilling his burden of proof. As of right now, there isn't a way for him to win the debate unless he makes a new argument.Sources:(1) - http://www.merriam-webster.com...;