I have a suspicion that my opponent will forfeit at least one round of this debate.

I'd like to say that the song on the right would be playing as I began this round: . http://www.youtube.com... =================== Contention 2: The Word Have =================== 1) A: My opponents attempts to overturn the impact of the answer he provided during C/X are admirable, but so very futile. He says I never clarified what I meant for the topic to be about past suspicion, but this clarification existed in our previous debate as well as the one through me pointing out my beliefs on the matter of context (me insinuating that things which had been written in the past should be observed from the context of the past). The fact of the matter is that I made it clear as to how I interpreted the topic on a the previous occasion. He then says that I could have changed the topic to read "As I'm typing this I have as suspicion that. .. .. blah blah. " However, my opponent has already defeated his own rebuttal during cross examination. Again, lets look at what he said in response to me citing a scenario where one clarifies to another on something on a previous day, only for one to say the same thing once more on the following day: Yraelz: "It would be logical for him to have a suspicion that that is what the other guy meant. " My opponent was well aware of my clarfication in my previous debate and has agreed to adhere to the notion that one should interpret a statement in the way it was clarified in the past if the statement is made once more. In other words, I didn't need to rephrase the topic according to my opponent's answer which he provided during C/X; there's no need for me to change my wording (the person in the hypothetical scenario didn't need to change his wording, according to my opponent . . . thus neither should I). The contender understood what I meant based on what I said in the past and should thus logically interpret the topic in the way which I've clarified on it in the past. B: Summed up in link 2) A" First, my opponent points out that my analysis about formal debate is moot on the basis that I provide an explanation that goes about looking at the topic in a different context. However, as I've already stated, that later argument is made on the off chance that you do not buy my argument against my opponent having ignored the context of the topic at hand. In addition, he claims that I've only supported his case, but if you'll look back to my previous, I make it quite clear that past experiences/ research come before the debate actually starts. Thus, him claiming that any new moment that passes becomes the past is not something which can be supported based on what I argued last round. As for the rest, I'm out of time, so drop. :D 3) In response to: "However, we are not talking about talks, we are speaking debate rounds. " Everything after the colon is simply an example of the word is used, thus it is illogical to conclude that the word can only be used to refer to talks or parties (not to mention one could very well consider this current activity to be a sequence of "talks" :D ). In response to: "Thus to be contextually correct, for this debate, the example would read: "The strike was settled after a long round of debates. " This is yet another example of my opponent relying on deceit in attempt to secure your vote, ladies and gentleman. Do not fall for it. The problem with my opponent's example is that he concludes that talks has to be equated to debate. However, even in policy debate, individuals have alot of "talks" between one another. For instance, looking at talks from the standpoint of a single talk being a single speech, this would most certainly make it logical for us to claim that multiple talks makes up a debate. Nevertheless, this is all besides the point. The main thing to keep in mind was that my definition was providing an example of how the word could be used. For instance, based on my definition, there is no reason as to why I couldn't use the word round to say "My opponent will present a round of opposing points five times in the non-comment section part of this debate. " In response to: "In other words a round of debate, under my opponents definition would be the COMPLETE argument going back and fourth until it was over. " Not at all. Based on my definition, the whole debate is an argument (in the sense of the word describing the event). All we are doing presenting a round of opposing points five times in the non-comment section part of this debate and then an unknown amount of times when we reach comment section part. In response to: "You will all notice that his definition of round is "any complete course, series, or succession. " Thus the complete series of arguments in this entire debate will be considered a round. " Nope. There is absolutely nothing in my definition which indicates this. It uses the term argument to describe the whole event. What I've described above is what is to be considered a round. CON then goes on to provide 3 arguments on the matter of me claiming that this debate can never actually end. First, let me clarify before responding to those 3 points. I made this claim because unlike the non-comment section part of the debate, there are an potentially an infinite amount of rounds which can be made in the comment section. Of course, even if my opponent argues that we'd have to take bandwidth into consideration, I could just as easily continue this debate elsewhere. . In response to those three points: 1) Nah, as insisted, a round simply consist of making opposing points to the other debater's position. CON's interpretation is fallacious as shown previously. 2) Even if we adhere to CON's nonsensical interpretation of the topic, his logic here wouldn't follow. After all, how can he say that he has participated in a complete thing, when he has not participated up until it's completion (which would be never)? 3) Basically, nothing new here as this hinges on his fallacious interpretation. However, I would like to point out something very interesting which I just now realized. This debate concerns whether or not I have a suspicion. My opponent has argued based on interpretations of terms which I do not adhere to. Thus, whereas he may continue to argue that I do not have a suspicion based on what he has argued, this does not mean that I agree with what he has argued int he first place. Personally, I do not and my suspicion remains strong. ================== Logical's Argument #1 (not a new argument since it existed in the previous round) ================== 1. My opponent does nothing to overcome my argument (and if he tries in the next round, you are to ignore it completely since I will have never had the opportunity to respond). I'm arguing that the past greatly supports the idea that he will forfeit. My opponent's argument most certainly does not stand because it is merely based on his own testimony. As already insisted, his goal in this debate is to WIN, thus he has ample motivation to lie. Furthermore, what's said here sums up this debate quite well: . http://dr-logic.livejournal.com...