Pro has a Heavier Burden Than Con When Debating on Debate.org if Pro Goes First in a Debate.

My burden is not solely to refute my opponent's points. Consider the following: Resolution: Carrots are delicious PRO: Carrots are delicious because the sky often appears to be blue. CON: PRO's argument is a non sequitur: he has not shown why a blue sky means carrots are delicious, nor is there an apparent connection. True enough, CON has refuted PRO's point above. However, he has failed to make any argument negating the resolution. Thus, if these were the ONLY arguments in a round, neither should win, since no one has convinced the audience as to the truth or falsehood of the statement "Carrots are delicious." I agree that CON doesn't have to argue for the 'opposite' of the resolution, but he does have to argue for the 'negative' of it. Consider this very debate: I don not have to show that CON's burden is heavier than PRO's. I could very well simply argue for their burdens being equal, and the resolution would still be negated. However, at least on debate.org, each debater has his own position - CON has to do more than simply refute PRO's points, he also has to make points negating the resolution, just as PRO must affirm the resolution. Let us first consider whether debate wording gives PRO an heavier burden. It would seem that based on this criteria alone, PRO has a heavier burden in THIS debate, since CON can argue that they're equal burdens as well as arguing that CON's is greater. However, every resolution has an equal and negative resolution. What I mean by this is as follows: The resolution could be switched to make PRO stance the same as CON's currently is. For this debate, the resolution would be as follows: "PRO's burden is less than or equal to CON's burden when debating on debate.org if PRO goes first." That's what MY position right now is, but that position could just as easily be a PRO position. In this case, PRO has more ground to argue, since he can argue either less burden for PRO or equal burden for PRO and CON. Therefore, the wording of the resolution cannot be said to cause PRO's burden to be heavier than CON's, since they are conceptually equal on this front. Now, let us consider the actual format of a debate.org debate. This is the only other thing that could make PRO's burden heavier than CON's. We'll pretend we're talking about a 3-round debate here, since that's standard. Round 1 PRO: PRO gets 8000 characters to make his own arguments. Round 1 CON: CON must split 8000 characters between refuting PRO's points and making any points of his own. Round 2 PRO: PRO Gets 8000 characters to refute CON's points and make new arguments. Round 2 CON: CON gets 8000 characters to refute PRO's new points and make new points. Round 3 PRO: PRO gets 8000 characters to either make new points, make new refutations, or simply make concluding statements. Round 3 CON: CON must rebut any new points of PRO's [If pro made any], and can also make concluding statements in his 8000 characters. So as we see, from round 1, PRO has the advantage, since he got a whole 8000 characters to make arguments for his side. In round 2, their burdens are equal. In round 3, PRO can choose to simply make no new arguments if his previous arguments suffice. This makes R3 nothing but concluding statements, which is equal for both sides. PRO can also make new arguments, in which case CON will have to rebut them, which is also an equal burden for both sides. So as we see, if anyone has the advantage due to the debate structure, it's PRO. Which means a lighter burden for PRO. And now, for a semantics argument. My opponent defines a heavier burden as "More to argue" However, as we saw above, each member has 8,000 characters per round. However, let's look at it in terms of how many things they each have to argue. PRO makes as many points as he wishes in R1. CON must argue against all these points in R1, as well as make new points to support his position. So far, CON has argued more, since he's argued both his own points and PRO's points. PRO must rebut CON's points in R2, and make any other new points. CON must rebut all of the above that PRO gave, and possibly make even more points. CON has still argued more. PRO must either make no new points or make some new points/rebuttals in R3. CON must argue against any new R3 points/rebuttals from PRO. In R3, they argued the same amount of stuff. However, in the previous 2 rounds, CON argued more than PRO. And thus, CON is the one with the heavier burden than PRO, given that PRO goes first. And obviously, as my opponent suggests, a forfeited round is irrelevant to what we're talking about, since forfeiture does not really meet the burdens each debater is supposed to have. Ergo, I will allow my opponent to respond now.