It is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds

Reasons why politics are not useless, etc." As Con has not challenged the reference of "because", his arguments against the yet invalid topic of the former evidence are also invalid. "You cannot imply you were referring to another debating site as a last resort to try to avoid losing the argument. If I tried to argue right now that I was referring to another debating website that was shut down after 2 years, and in that time no debate was won by a side that forfeited 4 rounds, then that would be irrelevant...." I am not referring to another debating site. I am referring to any debate with the said characteristics possible. "a debate" implies any debate. May I remind Con that from few characteristics of the debate described, one cannot draw out a complete debate in one's imagination and "assume" that the debate belongs to a group of debates, such as DDO. The reason why it is not irrelevant is that it creates a possibility. If a debating website that allowed the procedure of a debate in which the contender's opening argument is forfeited and that was shut down after 2 years, contained a debate in which the instigator produced an opening argument, but forfeited the 4 remaining rounds; and the contender forfeited all 5 rounds, it would thus be POSSIBLE for a debater to win "a debate" while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds. "I fail to see how you believe that "I Like Cheese" is a valid argument but "Cows make noise" is not a valid argument." The argument, "I like cheese", is the theory and the subject of the debate. The argument, "Cows make noise", is evidence against the theory, which is invalid, as the fact that cows make noise does not negate or disprove the fact that I like cheese. This scenario refers to a debate in which it would be moral and, as proved several times without a valid challenge, possible for a debater to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds. All of Pro's arguments (1) have gone unchallenged and all of Con's valid arguments (0) have gone challenged. Therefore it is moral for Pro to win the debate. "If the challenger did the same, then neither side would get points for anything and then that would result in a tie which would mean the side that forfeited 4 of 5 rounds cannot win." and the former. Con has not given any arguments against the fact that it is possible for the said instigator of the said conditions to win; only more invalid, and, in my opinion, pointless, arguments about how it is immoral for the said instigator of the said conditions to win, even this of which I have proved wrong without valid contradiction. Also, Con has not given any arguments against my earlier argument, "Furthermore, in my opening argument I stated the roles of Pro and Con clearly, yet Con introduces an invalid argument as part of my role and, for the contradiction of this argument, his role also.", so this, along with several other arguments, has gone unchallenged. My final argument is that the debate is not pointless. The statement, "I have decided to categorise the debate as politics, because it is as pointless as politics.", merely quantifies the validity of politics: Simply, A(1)=B(1) It does not suggest that A(1)=0; that politics is 100% pointless. To recap: "it is as pointless as politics" is evidence for the theory that I have decided to categorise the debate as politics. Con has proved that politics is not pointless, yet this does not contradict the evidence, because I have not said how pointless the debate is. If this does not sway the voter's decision, I have introduced alternative evidence for the theory that I have decided to categorise the debate as politics. This evidence is that I have categorised the debate as politics and, in doing so, I have DECIDED to categorise the debate as politics. Con has not argued against this evidence so my theory stands unchallenged. I have demonstrated that it is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds by confirming the definition of possible and impossible and producing several scenarios of which the debater can possibly win even if they morally should not, for example it is possible for the voters to vote for the said debater if they are all insane, which, although, unlikely, is possible. Con has merely contradicted this. He supplied no evidence against it. If this does not sway the voter's decision, I have produced a scenario of which it is moral for the voter to vote for the said debater. Con has merely contradicted this. He supplied no evidence against it. Con can only win this debate if he does ALL of the following: 1) Demonstrates that the topic of "Politics is pointless" is valid 2) Demonstrates that, in the said equation, A(1) is not equal to B(1) 3) Demonstrates that because in the former statement MUST be causal 4) Demonstrates that the new evidence is invalid or ALL of the following: 1) Demonstrates that impossible does not refer to certainty 2) Demonstrates that it is impossible for voters to vote immorally 3) Contradict, with valid evidence, the said scenario, in which, supposedly, voting for the said debater is moral. The former is an easier option, although both would be difficult and, indeed, morally incorrect.