The User Known As "Bluesteel" is a girl

Thanks Pro. I'll jump right into rebuttals: "I can just say that if you're not sure if I've fulfilled my burden of proof or not, then presume I have for the same two reasons my opponent dropped" The reasons were not dropped. In addition to writing that the BOP must be met, I added that your word isn't enough to prove the resolution. I can easily write the same thing, but that does not mean that it is by any means true or a good reason to believe that bluesteel is a girl. I stated that Pro must provide actual evidence of him seeing bluesteel in person to even have this argument in the first place, and even if Pro has seen bluesteel then we have to ask ourselves if Pro is even telling the truth. Even with that considered, we must ask if bluesteel had been tricking Pro or if Pro had been mistaken in thinking that bluesteel is a girl. Although I brought all of these points up in my initial response to Pro, he doesn't address them and states that I dropped it. Clearly, I have not. "A user is an entirely digitally constructed entity that may or may not correlate to the person that enters the login credentials for that user" Again, by definition a user is a person (Or thing, but I'm sure we can agree that bluesteel isn't a machine) that uses something. I agree that the user's profile may or may not by similar to that user's opinions/personality. In fact, I contend that that essentially supports my argument, as it outlines how it is very possible (And knowing the internet, likely) that one would use the anomnity that comes with the internet to their advantage and pretend to be someone else. "His definition is flawed here because it's not specific to an internet user, rather it talks about a generic "user", which could be referencing drug users to Xbox users" The term "user" is very general. However, saying that because a word that applies to many things it is flawed is irrational, as it has no bearing on the actual validity of the definition. "This debate is using the subject of user being the internet identity, which his definition doesn't address" The definition includes this. As mentioned last round, a user is the one who uses the account in this context. The fact that it doesn't agree with what he's arguing is not enough to dismiss the definition. "Moreover, even if his definition is solid, he's not providing you with any kind of warrant as for why this invalidates my argument, rather just throws the definition in your face and says "I win, moving on."" This is simply not true. I showed how with the definition of a user being "A person who uses something", there is no reason to think that Pro's attempts to redefine it are valid. He essentially asserts that a user is a digitally constructed identity, but doesn't give us a reason to think that. Again, a user can pretend to have a different identity but that does not make it their true identity. Someone's actual personal characteristics can be completely different from their profile. "And because the resolution is specific to the "user" known as bluesteel rather than the "person" known as bluesteel" I've already shown how "user" and "person" are the exact same thing. "Idon't actually need to prove that the person who uses the account known as "bluesteel" is a girl, all I need to do is prove that the user known as "bluesteel" is a girl, which are two entirely different things according to my argument" The problem with his argument is that he essentially asserts that his definition is correct, and that userhood is distinct from personhood, without giving much reason to convince people to adopt that. The little reason given has been refuted, "I'm not arguing that this is the case here. My argument is saying that because this is a thing that could possibly happen, that we have to consider userhood separate from personhood. Whether it's the case here is irrelevant to my argument" I had mentioned in my rebuttal that the traits of a person still does not change, even when they may be using multiple accounts. Although one can argue that the person using the account pretends to be a girl, that it not enough evidence to conclude that they are in fact a girl. The fact about how it probably wouldn't occur/the user would get caught was more of a side note. However, Pro only addresses the fact that it probably didn't happen rather than addressing the actual rebuttal, essentially leaving the rebuttal untouched. "This is making the assumption that personhood = userhood, which not only a) is the entire thing that my argument is intending to separate" The argument has already been refuted, but there has not really been a response to the rebuttal. Until Pro provides one the audience should not consider this statement as a valid refutation to my argument. "b) is a concept I've already refuted since he's just relying on his faulty definition to warrant it" I've shown above how the definition is not by any means faulty. In addition, I've shown how your refutations are not logically valid. "The thing that you have to be aware of is by the nature of a syllogism, if all of the premises are true and stand, then the conclusion must necessarily be true because that's how deductive logic works. He doesn't contest any of the premises, and even concedes that they're true, which means that the conclusion must necessarily be true. This means that his responses are just default wrong via deductive logic" This is false. I stated that we had no reason to think that one of the premises were true, and thus should probably not believe it until Pro comes up with sufficient evidence. Clearly, this is different than conceding the point. "nothing I provide will ever be sufficient [enough to prove that bluesteel is a girl]" The BOP of the debate in this case is on Pro to prove that "the user known as bluesteel is a girl". This is an affirmative statement and it is up to him to back up this claim. He cannot show that bluesteel may be a girl, that it is probable that bluesteel is a girl, or that there is a possibility that bluesteel is a girl; He must actually show that bluesteel is a girl. This is his BOP that he essentially agreed to fulfill when he made this debate, and he has just admitted that he is not able to provide any sufficient evidence. Because of this, he essentially conceded the debate, as he outright admitted that he cannot meet his BOP, and thus is unable to fulfill the conditions he must meet to win the debate. With his burden of proof admittedly unsatisfied, Pro cannot win this debate. "Even if the BoP is on me instead of con, you still presume I'm winning the debate because I'm a much better authority on who bluesteel is than my opponent, thus am more likely correct that she's a girl. His responses don't actually address the argument I make here so I'm winning the presumption debate. If the debate is at all close in any way, you affirm" This has been shown to be false multiple times. There are countless ways people can experience something that is not actually what they think it is. It may be real to them, but it does not necessarily objectively exist. This can occur as a result of a number of things, such as drugs/alcohol, fatigue or lack of sleep, or even a trick from the person behind the camera. Even more ways exist, but the point is that Pro has not proven this point at all yet. Even if the logic behind it was valid, there's no reason to believe him at all. Pro's arguments are clearly not enough to proof the large claim that bluesteel is a girl. His responses to my rebuttals either do not address the points being made or are essentially bare assertions. In addition, he admittedly cannot fully fulfill his burden of proof, and can only offer small pieces of evidence that do not prove in anyway that bluesteel is a girl. Please consider these points when voting, and thank you for reading what I had to say about this issue. Good luck Pro, have a nice day! Also, happy Easter! (Even if you don't celebrate Easter, I hope you have a nice day anyway!)