Challenge me.

Hmm, we are debating how we are allowed to debate! However, I must voice my opinions here. "A. Setting the burden of proof for both sides makes for a bad debate. Consider the following: Both of us make arguments, but neither of us manage to "prove" these arguments. How can anyone decide a winner? People wouldn't vote. I think that a good debate should encourage lots of voting so as to find a greater consensus among our little debate community." Just because each of us has the burden of proof does not mean we are not allowed to attack the other's case. I must tear down your case WHILE strengthening my own. That is debating. "B. With the burden of proof on both sides, the debate will lend itself to hit-and-miss arguments. What I mean to say is that the debate will be more focused on defensive argumentation strategy. We've only got a set amount of room to debate with, so if we are stuck defending our positions rather than attacking our opponent's, the debate becomes rather boring." If, in your scenario, we were defending our own cases, that would mean they were being attacked. Therefore, the debate would be well-rounded, ad there is no problem. There is nothing wrong with that scenario. As for the character limit,(that my opponent set) that is where the skill comes in. Words must not be wasted, and the point should be clear. THAT is what the voters want to see. "C. Alternative: I suggest that we instead make the burden of proof rest upon the shoulders of the PRO in this debate. In doing so, we (A) gain a greater consensus as to who wins the debate, and (B) avoid making the debate boring and full of defensive argumentation." There are a few problems with this. We could just have easily reworded the resolution to: "Citizens should NOT be allowed to own firearms" and put the burden on you. If only one side has the burden of proof, then the debate becomes what my opponent says we should not allow it to be. If only I have the burden of proof, CON has no need for a case. Then I am only defending, and he is only attacking. That is clearly weighted for the negative side. (nice try though ;) If both sides share the burden, then it would be fairly weighted. In addition, it would make a mixture of attacking and defending, as opposed to my opponent's suggestion. "2. NEW MATERIAL-I think I have a general idea of what my opponent means by this, but I'd like an explanation. Can you explain what you mean by new material? (New sources? New arguments?) I like the idea; I'd just like a better understanding before I agree to it completely." I mean new arguments and evidence. It is unfair for a side to bring up new material in the last round when the other side cannot respond. "3. SWEARING-I'd like an explanation on this one as well. It might be a problem...just kidding." This was just supposed to be humorous. I must also contend my opponent's definitions. He made a dangerous move by allowing me to pick the topic. He essentially just wanted to debate for the sake of debating. Now when someone forms a resolution, they form it based on certain definitions. By changing the definitions, my opponent also changes the resolution, and the debate itself. He asked me to make a resolution, but he now wants to mold it to his benefit. I cannot allow this. This is the resolution, and these are the definitions. They are unarguable, and cannot be changed. Even if I made up the definitions myself, they would still be valid. Please stick to the resolution and its meaning. "B. IF MY FRAMEWORK IS REJECTED-If my framework is rejected, I will still debate with my own definitions in order to prove that United States citizens should absolutely not be allowed to own firearms." If you debated with your definitions, you would have to ignore my case saying that it is irrelevant. Since I am PRO, and since you allowed me to make the resolution, we must debate this by my framework. If you do not want that in the future, do not allow your opponent to choose the resolution. You have the freedom to debate this on a moral, legal, logical, or by any measurement that you want. You cannot change the framework though. With that said, I allow my opponent to present his case. May the best debater win.