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

Con claims that I ignore all of his core points. As far as I can tell, Con really hasn’t had a core point. Almost every argument he has made has been a response to a specific statement that I made, and his arguments have been very inconsistent and even contradictory at times. Still, I did not ignore his points, I simply spent more time building my case then refuting his. Cons arguments were mostly based on trying to establish the definition of quality and quantity, and how it applies to the phrase. My arguments were based on showing where his arguments lead, and were composed of 2 main concepts which Con had to refute to negate the resolution. Focusing on them was the sensible thing to do, Con should have done the same. Disregarding Unfavorable Circumstances In the last round Con made the following argument regarding the quantity of favorable circumstances clear with this sentence: “That’s not true, if both people have 75 favorable circumstances, but one person has 50 unfavorable circumstances, while the other person has only 25; they have equal opportunity, but they do not have equal probability.” This plus his quality of rain example he clarified last round finally give a clear answer to the question I have been asking throughout this entire debate; how you can measure a possibility without referring to probability? According to Cons arguments the difference here is that measuring opportunity does not factor unfavorable circumstances, only favorable ones. Meanwhile probability factors the unfavorable ones. Con never stated that unfavorable circumstances should not be factored in the quality of an opportunity. His point here was very hard to realize throughout the debate because first off, it is an incredibly absurd argument to the point that you just don't expect that to be the message, making it difficult to catch. I will go more into that in a few minutes. And second, because Con not only communicated this extremely poorly but even contradicted it a few times. I’d like to remind the voters of Cons quote from round 3: “On an unrelated note, I would also like to thank Pro for admitted circumstances can’t be used to measure opportunity; I’m glad you can finally own up to your mistakes.” I never did find out who he is talking too with this comment, but I had more important things to focus on. This is just one of the many contradictions in Cons arguments throughout the debate which made it very hard for me to figure out what he is talking about. Anyway, the point of my original argument was that circumstances can not be used to measure a possibility because by doing so you now cross into the realm of probability. I have made this argument consistently in every round. Now I’d also like to remind the voters of Cons own definition of opportunity according to his last round and more importantly, the acceptance round: Opportunity: “a possibility due to a favorable combination of circumstances” Notice that this definition does not say “a combination of favorable circumstances”. A favorable combination is a combination (favorable and unfavorable circumstances together) that is overall favorable. Cons own definition contradicts his argument. The last thing I will point out about this is that Con did show this argument about disregarding unfavorable circumstances in his charts. However, I remind the voters that posting a picture is no different then posting a youtube video or any other source. It is not my responsibility to read and figure out what his charts are showing, there is a character limit for a reason. It was Cons responsibility to explain what his charts showed yet not once did he explain anything in them so I have no obligation to understand and respond to arguments he didn’t make. Since this is the first time in this debate he has stated anything that clarifies his position that unfavorable circumstances should be disregarded when measuring an opportunity, I have every right to refute it here. All Circumstances Should be Factored Let’s compare the following example: We have two young adults that wish to earn a degree in the countries top college. They both have 4.0 GPA’s in high school (favorable circumstance #1), they both have the money to afford the best college (F.C. #2) and they both got nearly perfect scores on their SAT’s (F.C. #3). However, the year is 1950, and the first person is black, the second is white. The nations “top college” is racist against blacks and also concerned about their reputation if they accept one. So in this scenario do they both have an equal opportunity to earn a degree in the countries top college? The answer is obvious and highlights why Cons argument is so absurd. These two people have the same quantity of favorable circumstances, however the unfavorable circumstance not shared by both can not be reasonably disregarded. In fact this example is practically where the term “equal opportunity” comes from. Now Con could try to argue that that being white was a favorable circumstance, and since that person had one more favorable circumstance, he had a higher “quality of an opportunity”. But this argument would only show why both must be considered. Every circumstance can be considered favorable or unfavorable depending on which viewpoint you are looking at it from. Con prefers this method because it allows him to pick and choose which circumstances he would like to disregard so that he can claim that any two people have equal opportunity. Cons argument of disregarding unfavorable circumstances completely ignores the point of the word “equal”. Communication In the last round I showed how Con referred to my analogy as a “red herring with no relevance to the debate” while providing no support for this statement. Con then tried to explain himself with this: “Notice the semicolon; I explained why it was a red herring before calling it a red herring, within the same sentence.” I am absolutely baffled at Cons response. Here is Cons “explanation”: “’The phrase ‘Equal Opportunity’ refers to probability, not possibility.’Equal being an adjective comparable to beautiful, while opportunity is a noun comparable to girl” Con literally did nothing except show that my analogy used an adjective and a noun which were both comparable to the adjective and noun used in the phrase we are debating. That only means that it is a valid analogy. It would seem apparent that Con does not know what a red herring is. Being that the statement is the only “argument” Con made against my point that “equal” is the focus of the phrase “equal opportunity”, my point obviously stands. Conclusion There is little that is left to be said at this point. Con still seems to believe that equal opportunity refers to the quality and quantity (as he defines them) of the opportunity. No one uses the phrase the way Con claims, and he provided almost no examples to show how his definitions apply to any real life scenario. Con had no adequate answer to how one can measure a possibility without referring to probability, and no rebuttal to the fact that the phrase equal opportunity refers to the word equal, which is a measurement of the possibility thus crossing into the concept of probability. With these two arguments left standing, the resolution is clearly affirmed.