None of these debates are "real debates", just self-appointed guffaws without sense of self-discipli

I'm not sure if pro is a troll or insaneSemantics and The Resolution: Pro lists the rules as follows:"There is no such thing as BOP, Source, Resolution, Tautology or Answer in a debate that involves a truly intelligent specimen that treats knowledge more than a toy or tool to prove one's self."Now this is either trying to bridge the gap because pro is aware of his poor debating skills or he does not know what a debate is.A debate is defined as follows:"a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints".A resolution is what's being debated, if there's no resolution, there is no debate. A BoP is extremely vital to any intellectual discussion." In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena "If there is no BoP or Noll Hypothesis, then one will end up believing mutually contradictory claims.Sources are important, because it let's one know that a participant is not pulling data out of thin air. Plus the chances are that in most debates on this site, neither participant has a PhD in the subject, so sources get the viewpoint of someone with authority.The Resolution is that none of the debates pro listed are real debates.Well per the definition of debate, if ANY of the debates mentioned in pro's first round, involve a public question, with two opposing view points, the resolution is negated.Let's take the debate: " Gods; ghosts; aliens; other creatures that only exist in our heads "One can either be Pro or Con for god's existence, or the existence of ghosts or aliens.By definition this is a "real debate". Now if it's a meaningful debate is a differen't subject.Also the proposition that X is X but not a real X is incoherent.How can something be a debate but not a real debate?By law of identity X is X.By law of non-contradiction X can't be true and false.By law of excluded middle, either X is true or X is false.So a debate is necessarily a real debate, if it is a debate.So basically I win, pro literally can not meet the BoP.On Pro Being A Jerk: Pro's reasoning is as follows: "same back and forth issues; same sources; same misunderstanding; same suspecting; same question begging; same ignorance; same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room, but comes onto a matrix of information, built by intelligence, to spread their ignorance just because they want to argue with another primate."Well he has offered no justification for these assertions."Same sources" ? Obviously not, if they were the same sources, everyone would have the same position."Same misunderstanding"? No, then everyone would be on the same side, but incorrect."Same question begging?" Begging the question is..: Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly). Claim C (the conclusion) is true. Example: Bill: "God must exist." Jill: "How do you know." Bill: "Because the Bible says so." Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?" Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God." BoP is on Pro to show that all of these beg the question. "Same ignorance"?Once again, everyone would have the same position.Also,you have not justified that it is ignorance. "same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room"How is this germane to the debate? Also, how can you know?Conclusion:Any debate is a real debate, so the resolution is negatedVote Con. [1] http://www.nizkor.org...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...