Debate.org version 3 will more likely than not be up and running by the time this debate concludes.

RE: The burden of proof falls upon my opponent. Let us explore the ideas which the contender seems content with presenting. First, it must be known that as CON, he is one who disagrees with the topic. Thus, to disagree with this topic, one would have to uphold the position that "Debate.org version 3 will more likely than not be up and running by the time this debate concludes" is wrong. With that being said, if we follow my opponents train of thought, it's conclusion is simply that "Because Logical-Master's premises are invalid, the statement that "Debate.org version 3 will more likely than not be up and running by the time this debate concludes." is wrong. However, just because my opponent could hypothetically refute my premises, it does not mean he has refuted their conclusion. For instance, if a debater claims that "all cookies are salty, ergo, the earth revolves around the sun", a rival debater could very well refute the premise "all cookies are salty" and show that this premise has nothing to do with the conclusion, but this would not mean that the rival debater refuted the conclusion, ergo, never upheld his position. In debate.org's case, when someone signs up for a position that dictates that they disagree with the topic (as the contender did here), it means that they must show the topic is wrong, therefore showing that CON has a burden as well. CON's problem is that he is treating the concept of "BOF" legalistically (as in court, it is one job's side to demonstrate something beyond the notion of a doubt). However, in a simple debate, both debaters possess the burden of demonstrating which position is more likely. RE: "The Intended debate is subjective." False. I created the resolution and defined it in R1, ergo, what I say it means is what it means. RE: "Faith" This is basically a point being used to say that I have no evidence. Thus, it should be thrown out as I have yet to agree that CON has refuted my evidence. RE"The webmaster has the potential for fallibility." No one denied this. RE: "Projecting the probability to be precisely at least 51% because merely the webmaster says so is fallacious: Not really. After all, we're speaking in terms of probability. As suggested previously, because probability is not conclusive, it changes depending on the amount of evidence there is to go on. Since the evidence tips in my favor, my position is more likely true than my opponent's, thus, using the webmaster's credibility in order to win this particular debate is by no means fallacious. "Though credibility might boost likelihood, who is to say what type of boost this might be?" I am . . . and with good reason. In R3, my opponent by no means attacks my claim that the webmaster is credible, therefore drops it, therefore concedes. His only objection is that "credibility does not equal certainty." Thus, taking this into account, my opponent's RECENT demand for proof ought to be seen as the "moving the goal post" fallacy. Also, to be a credible source, you have to be reliable. And to be reliable, your information must be considered correct most of the time. But to pacify PRO, sure, I'll go ahead and show how the webmaster is credible. He runs the website, is well informed on its inner workings, thus pretty much is most likely knowledgeable of everything there is know about the machinations of debate.org. This would suggest that he'd be correct on information concerning this subject most of the time. This would only be different if there were sources other than the webmaster which were PRESENTED (as this would then cause the weight of my source to decrease in order fit with the other sources). RE: "This by no means concludes that event is more likely to occur merely because of potential progress made on it." Con misunderstood the impact of these two arguments being stacked side by side. With the webmaster's word, we have at least a 51% chance that V3 will be up and running. In addition, with it being acknowledged that the percent is constantly INCREASING to the logic of the "progression argument" (which CON has conceded to), then we can say that odds of V3 being up most likely aren't DECREASING. Thus, at the beginning of our analysis, the chances V3 being up start at 51% and simply increase rather than decrease. RE: "Evidence that is not conclusive in proving the resolution for my opponent would not suffice to give my opponent the win." I've already explained (and PROVEN) how this debate isn't about providing conclusive evidence as probability is by no means static given that it changes (at least on criteria such as this) depending on the amount of evidence. PRO is simply repeating himself ad nauseum given that my argument is ignored entirely. BOTTOMLINE: Even if you happen to agree with PRO's rigid absurd idea of the BOF, it doesn't matter here since that kind of evidence is not possible to obtain that kind of evidence (probability and certainty are contradictory to one another) for this kind of debate. I've already provided the evidence which is needed. "The side with the strongest argument, arguably, would not win the debate. This is dependent, however, of what my opponent means by "strongest." Most evidence is what I mean by strongest. RE:" Deductive reasoning does not necessarily have to rely of inductive reasoning. For example: All apples are fruit. Some apples are red. Therefore some fruits are red." This depends upon interpretation of reality. For instance, all apples are fruit why? Because we CLASSIFY them as fruit based on our own interpretation of what is and what isn't to be considered fruits. We could just as easily interpret what is to be considered a fruit differently through a means that roots out apples and then apples would not be considered a fruit. If something is absolute, we shouldn't be able to change it so easily. RE: "Because both of the above could be true, but there is no current reason for one to quantitatively outweigh the other, there is a theoretical 50% chance for a given above option to be true (i.e. that it might be up sooner, or it might be up later). Thus, this option entails that it is unknown. " This argument is riddled with one main problem and that is that he states that there is no current reason for one to "quantitatively" outweigh the other. However, CON has agreed with a reason that would quantitatively cause one side to outweigh the other and that is the fact that he has agreed with my argument on how the percentage is in a state of PROGRESSION. If one side is indeed increasing whereas there's no reason to believe any change is being made upon the other (CON admits this himself), then that would mean that both of these possibilities were not equal and that the first possibility (the possibility which I am arguing in favor of) is the possibility which is more likely to occur, ergo, even by CON's own argument, my position is superior. Finally, in addition to the webmaster being used as evidence, even if my opponent is to think that the webmaster's word is incredibly minor when it concerns increasing the percentage, this does not matter, as even a mere one percent can break a 50/50 tie. WHY TO VOTE CON: 1) I was the only one to present evidence, thus, for you formal judges who are not influenced by any possible evidence outside of the round, you are to see my position as being 99.999% likely. 2) With the webmaster being a RELIABLE source (which would dictate 51% or more) in addition to the fact that the percentage is constantly increasing, this would be seen as proving my side of the resolution. 3) By CON's own argument at the end in addition to the "progression" point which he conceded to earlier, that would dictate that there was at least a 51% chance of V3 being up. Merely a single one of these reasons would win me the CON ballot. Specifically though, I think #3 is the strongest, so vote off of that. :D Thanks for