New debate.org website (version 3) will probably not be online till June 2008!

So to start my case I must begin by examining fallacious beast's case. With a brief scan I quickly deduct that fallacious beast uses 4 different arguments to quickly dissemble my "case". And I would very much have liked to agree with fallacious beast if I had not noticed that at the beginning of his argument he had to redefine my case. Fallacious beast redefined my case in two sentences: "Since my opponent insists that this claim is probable, he is no doubt using probable evidence. According to the 2007 version of Black's Law Dictionary, probable evidence is defined as: "Evidence deemed sufficient to establish another fact unless discredited by other evidence. "" This seems like an excellent instance for me to point out my opponent, fallacious beast, employing a straw-man fallacy. In fact, not only does fallacious beast employ the straw man fallacy, he does so using a slippery slope fallacy. And after fallacious beast employs a slippery slope fallacy to fallaciously straw man my argument he turns around and employs another slippery slope fallacy to come to this conclusion, "In other words, all I have to do is discredit the claim provided by debate. org with other evidence in order to win this debate. " So let me begin with the first fallacy fallacious beast commits, being the original slippery slope. My opponent takes a quick look at the word probably in the resolution and assumes that something of probability requires probable evidence, and yeah for about half a moment I would have conceded that point to him. Except he goes on to define probable evidence as "Evidence deemed sufficient to establish another fact. .. ." Which is not what I am doing at all, I am establishing something is probable not factual. This leads us to the definition of probably, Probably: adv. Most likely; presumably. (dictionary. com) Dictionary. com also lists about 10 other definitions, but I fail to see where any of them define probably as "a fact". Thus fallacious beast employs the slippery slope fallacy, to jump to the conclusion that to proves something probably true one requires "probable evidence", simply because they sound alike. This fallacy in turn leads fallacious beast to straw man my entire case, basing it not on whether the event is probably true or not but rather whether the event contains "probable evidence" to establish factuality. In turn fallacious beast offers 4 arguments for why my case does not contain probable evidence, which would be great, except for the fact that we are debating "New debate. org website(version 3) will probably not be online till June 2008! " not "The idea that the new debate. org website will not be online until June 2008 can be proven factual through probable evidence. " Had that been the debate topic I would love to concede right now. Sadly fallacious beast is a fallacious monster. Now I am left with just a few more things to cover, I will offer them in a three pronged conclusion. 1. The evidence I offer for this probably being the case is none other than the claim posted here by the webmaster, . http://www.debate.org... . 2. My opponents conclusion is quite simply, "the conclusion that version 3 will POSSIBLY (rather than PROBABLY) be online by June 2008. " This can be debunked by defining possibly, Possibily: perhaps; maybe. So while my opponents statement is true, it does not detract from my statement. My statement being slightly more strong as their is actually evidence to lead us to believe that debate. org will not be online until June 2008. My statement however does not rule out the possibility of it occurring before then, it just places it as unlikely. 3. Fallacious beast ends his case by stating, "Of course, there is also the fact that just because users can't access the new version of the debate. org, it doesn't mean that it isn't online (after all, the staff would need to often test its online performance before releasing it to members). " Sadly there is: a. The fact that staff having to test debate. org does not require it being online in the least and b. Absolutely no proof for this statement. Thank you.