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

It would seem that my opponent insist on clinging to those fallacies as if they are his bread and butter. Ladies and gentleman, it is now clear beyond a reasonable doubt that my opponent is suffering from an addiction to logical fallacies. This is serious business! I've seen this condition before and let me tell you, it's not pretty. We need to help him as soon as possible! How to help him you say? Well, if you have any sense of compassion in your hearts, you should vote CON. First, I'll again point out that you should vote on who provided the better arguments rather than what you personally believe. Second, I'll like to also remind you that this debate doesn't hinge on our discussion concerning the definitions. As I've pointed out the previous round, regardless of whether or not you agree with me on the definition I presented, my four attacks on my opponent's only piece of evidence still work. In the previous round, I clarified why I used Black's Law Dictionary. My opponent does not address this clarification in round 3 and therefore concedes to it. Thus, there is absolutely no reason as to why he should still be arguing on the matter of definitions. Next, I had clearly made it known that my opponent was urging certainty on the matter of the new version of debate.org PROBABLY being online in June 2008. The PRO's response to this does not address this. Rather, it merely suggest that probably is not defined as certainty (something which I didn't argue, hence a straw man argument). His argument would only be correct if the resolution were phrased as "It MIGHT be probable that the new version of debate.org will be online by June 2008." Thus, I advise you to dismiss his response on this issue. As for me upholding "possibility", again, our positions differ. I say that based on our current evidence, we cannot conclude that the new version of debate.org will be PROBABLY be uploaded by June 2008 Hence, my position does conflict with the instigator's. My opponent attempts to justify his erroneous arguments by stating the following: "Which means not only does more time occur after then making the resolution the most likely in a chronological sense but also the most knowledgeable source and only reliable one on this website is telling us that this is the case." First, there being more time after June does not make the resolution most likely. In fact, my opponent never bothers to explain how it does. Lets apply his logic to a simpler example: I say that Yraelz will probably be using the restroom at 10:00 am tomorrow morning. Because there is more time after 10:00 am tomorrow morning then there is time before it, the possibility of Yraelz using the restroom at that time is higher than the probability of him not using it at that time. Does this make any sense? Of course not. How does there being an infinite amount of time after 10:00 am make it more likely that Yraelz will use the restroom at exactly 10:00 am? This makes no sense and is clearly a non sequitur. The same is said for my opponent's argument. The only possible way he could support this argument would be to insist that the resolution isn't just referring to June 2008, but that it allows more time. As I've pointed out in the previous round, if it can somehow be defined as that, then it directly contradicts the words of the webmaster. Thus, my opponent's only piece of evidence would conflict with his own argument. Second, I've already provided reasons as to why the Webmaster making this prediction does not make the occurrence probable. Because my opponent has dropped all four of these reasons in his second round, he concedes to my point. And if you read the comment section, you'll note that he encourages that you vote based what the debaters do in the round rather than any personal input on your part. In other words, even if you happen to disagree with the reasons and their conclusion which I provided, you should still vote in favor of them.. Finally, my opponent suggest that there being a new version of debate.org being tested online is not the new debate.org, but this is just my opponent straw manning the resolution . The resolution makes it quite clear that version 3 of the debate.org website is the new website, thus my argument would be valid. Now although my opponent has relied on a plethora of fallacies to maintain his arguments . . . oddly enough, it is not the main reason you should vote. Nor should your reason to vote concern the technicality I exposed that would suggest that the new version of debate.org has already been online. Rather, you should vote based on how my opponent has SAVAGELY ignored my 4 individual attacks on the ONLY piece of evidence which he could present in this debate. If those are to be held true and conceded to, then it's quite clear that we cannot conclude that the new version of debate.org being uploaded in June 2008 is probable. Thus, you should vote CON. I thank the audience for reading. I would also like to thank my opponent and hope that he recovers from this addiction of his. Would hate to see him end up like Britney. Later! :D