The User Known As "Bluesteel" is a girl

Throughout the entirety of the debate, the only kind of substantive response my opponent has given is that I'm not providing "enough proof" and has entirely mishandled/dropped the vast majority of my arguments. I'm here to show you that you absolutely cannot do that and still have any hope of winning the round. First, extend presumption. In the event of a tie or you're not sure of who's doing a better job fulfilling their burdens in the debate, you err on the side of aff because a) I've been around longer and have known bluesteel longer and b) have seen bluesteel on G+ hangouts with her camera off, therefore am a better authority and have a better idea on what gender bluesteel is than my opponent, making my opinion more likely to be valid. His ONLY responses have been that I have the BOP and that my word isn't sufficient, but this really isn't responsive to what a presumption argument even is. As I've clarified in previous rounds, the entire point of a presumption argument is if neither of us are doing a good job of fulfilling our resolutional burdens and you as the voter are unsure of who actually won the debate. In the event no one's argument is compelling, neither aff nor neg, then all you have to go on in terms of voting is my word over his, in which case you affirm 100%. None of the reasonings why you're preferring my word over his were ever attacked at any point in this debate, so this is clear offense for aff. As for the responses, those are his only two responses to the general affirmative, so I'll get to those in a minute. Extend that the BoP is on Neg in this debate. The current status quo and belief on DDO is that bluesteel is a girl, as evidenced by the fact that her profile reads as female and that popular belief among recent members is that she's a girl, not to mention the numerous forum posts and PMs that indicate that she's of female gender. A deviation from the status quo requires a justification for why we ought to deviate, otherwise there's no reason to change our beliefs. This is especially damning because a) my opponent hasn't made any kind of constructive argument throughout the entirety of the debate, and b) all of his responses to my case are defensive, meaning that they aren't reasons why the negative is right, rather reasons why I'm wrong. All of his time has been devoted to trying to refute my arguments, meaning he hasn't made any arguments of his own that generate negative offense. This has two implications on the debate and how you vote today: a) It's literally impossible for him to fulfill his burden because he has no offense throughout the entire debate, therefore impossible for him to win the debate, and b) even if you buy his arguments that I'm not giving you enough proof, you still prefer my kind-of-sort-of fulfilled burden over his burden that was never even attempted to be fulfilled. Also, reject the concept that burden of proof lies on the aff because they're making a positive claim because both sides make positive claims due to the inherent dichotomy of the resolution. Aff makes the claim that bluesteel is a girl, while Neg makes the claim that bluesteel is a guy. Both of these claims are positive claims, therefore, by my opponent's argument, require proof. I've provided you with arguments that serve as proof. My opponent hasn't done anything. You can affirm right here without reading anything else. Just for the sake of clarity and not giving me a headache going through neg's redundant responses, I'm kicking contention one. It's not necessary for me to win the debate, and you're easily affirming off of contention two anyway.Speaking of which, extend contention two. Using the proven malehood of the user known as Mikal and the definition of heterosexual meaning of different genders, I syllogistically prove that bluesteel must absolutely, 100% be a girl by using deductive logic. Deductive logic means that I take logical steps and thoughts in order to reach a conclusion. If the steps are valid, then by deductive logic, the conclusion must be valid, regardless of how preposterous the conclusion. The problem with my opponent's responses here is that he concedes 90% of the premises right off the bat, and his only response to the third premise just isn't enough nor does it actually refute the argument overall. Not only do I have an independent third party confirming that bluesteel and Mikal were in a relationship of heterosexual origins, but by Mikal's own admission he was in a relationship with bluesteel that was 100% heterosexual. That proves the third premise. His refusal of it doing this is just him sticking his head in the sand. That's like if I were to say that I was a guy that I'm wrong because I could be lying and I need to better warrant my manhood.Furthermore, extend my turn that by my opponent's logic, we can't ever reach any kind of conclusion because we can never have "sufficient" evidence to prove anything. Anyone's word could always be in jest or could be a lie, any picture could be doctored or stolen from somewhere else, any video evidence could be staged and inaccurate. It becomes impossible to reach any kind of conclusion, both in favor of aff and of neg. It standstills the entirety of the debate because we can't prove anything. And even in this situation, you still affirm because a) I'm winning the presumption debate, meaning that if neither of our arguments are doing enough then you prefer my authority over my opponent's lack of authority, and b) I'm doing a better job at attempting to fulfill my burden, compared to my opponent's complete and utter neglect of his burden, meaning that I've done the better job debating. A voter's responsibilities as a voter is to judge who did a better job debating, not on which side is correct, as that invites outside intervention on the judge's part. I'm doing a better job attempting to fulfill my burden than my opponent, which means I'm doing the better job debating, which means you affirm there. So at the end of the day, this debate is a super simple affirmative vote:1) Only one premise in my second contention was attacked, with all the rest being conceded. The attack on my third premise was weak, at best, and thuroughly refuted. My second contention is definitive proof that bluesteel is, in fact, a girl, meaning you affirm right there.2) My opponent provides no constructive arguments of his own, meaning he physically cannot fulfill his burden that the resolution imposes on him. That means it's impossible for him to win the debate, which means you affirm. 3) Even if all else fails and you're still unsure of where to vote, you affirm because a) I'm winning the presumption debate, meaning that you're erring aff anyway, and b) I'm doing a better job of attempting to fulfill my burden compared to my opponent, meaning that I'm doing the better job debating.