From a debate judging standpoint LM should win the "Pizza Rocks My World" debate with cliffsofdover

Thank heavens my opponent did not advocate that LM was not a debater in that debate!!! First, let us negate his attack on my most cherished "possibility/certainty" tactic. I'll address each of his comparisons accordingly and then attack his general reasons. Re: "I could not argue that it's simply possible that LM should have won that debate." Actually, this would be a valid argument as the premise would be there is no decisive way to determine who won and who lost. It is unfortunate that my opponent didn't take this route as I admittely believe it would have been a harder position to tackle. Re: CON has to show that there is indeed something wrong with being a bit sexist sometimes. Not at all. CON could advocate that there is no way to conclude that there is indeed something wrong with being a bit sexist sometimes, however, unlike the previous usage of "possibility/certainty", this would be much harder for CON to pull off in this instance as it is rather simple to show a wrong of "a bit of sexism" with decisive means. Re: "CON's position must directly conflict with the resolution." My esteemed opponent seems to believe that possibility does not directly conclict with certainty. Interestingly enough, there is emphasis of the word "directly", as without it, he'd essentially be suggesting that "will" and "may" mean the same thing. As in, I WILL go to the store means I MAY go to the store. If he is suggesting this, all it will take is a simple definition to refute his case. If this is not the case and he means to suggest that he believes there is indeed conflict, but he just doesn't believe that it's direct, the two contentions below should suffice. First, lets go ahead and expose a crucial flaw in CON"s case. He suggest that in order for this to be considered a debate, there must be DIRECT conflict. I agree that there must be conflict present, but by what authority is he able to suggest that there must be DIRECT conflict? If you'll notice, in no place within his entire case does that he bother to present one. For that matter, he never bothers to point out why the conflict must be defined as DIRECT in order for the communication process to be categorized a debate. Thus, it is quite clear that he is guilty of Petito Principii (begging the question). Thus, it is rather obvious that his case rest on nothing. And like the characters in the old cartoons would realize when they were walking on thin air, it immediately plummets below. Second, when attempting to disprove that possibility and certainty conflict, he simply cites three statements, and screams to the top of his lungs that "There is no direct conflict there." Well in response to that, I must point out that "Yeah, that might that true" is the same as saying "that might be false." This contradicts the stance that is urging absolutism (as in, IT IS TRUE, NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!). Furthermore, it is suggesting that there is indeed a way to decisively conclude [insert resolution]. Once again, my opponent will have to point out what is meant by "direct" and show that "his version" of "direct" conflict is necessary for the entire communication process to be categorized as a debate. Above all, he will have to show that this proves "certainty/possibility" don't directly conflict. So far, he has not even attempted to do this. Therefore, there is no way for him to win this debate in its current direction. As for PRO providing reasons, Darth Grievouses comment in the comment section of that debate pretty much summarizes my response to this argument. "Logical Master won hands down. I am not convinced either way that cliffsofdover really likes pizza at all. In fact, I would guess that by the amount of evidence he did not give that he probably does not like pizza at all, and his lack of proof is only because he does not properly know how to express his love of pizza. He could have given examples of his mouth watering at the smell, situations were he will only buy frozen pizza's at the Grocery story, or how a new Pizza Hut deal is the highlight of his life. Rather he let me know how pizza was made. Interesting but not convincing when pertaining to himself." Lastly, he ends in claiming that it was my job to show that the resolution was not true. As cliffsdover's opponent, I did just that, hence possibility/certainty. Cliffsdover's position suggested that it was certain. In response, I suggested that it being certain IS NOT TRUe based on the evidence. I believe this is once again a matter which my opponent will insist that I did not DIRECTLY show the resolution wasn't true. I'll give him till the next round to come up with an argument for this business which concerns "directly", though I guarentee you that there he is no way he will be able to argue without introducing subjective information. Now let us proceeed to my own arguments. It must be pointed out that my opponent in that debate believed that it was his job to get me to believe that pizza was good, hence the following quote "rite theyre, yu admit that you liek pizza. You sed that they look mouthwatering, which means that you like it." Or even saying "Actually Mr. Imsogood instead of saying dat eye donut haff enugh proof to proove that pizza is good, why dont yu proove to mii dat it isnt, 4 iff you dunt, i win this debate, because you are not going aganst me (asss you admitted pizza's good) you are simplee asking me for my reesons without haffing any of ur own" is somewhat different. My opponent agrees with me on my interpretation of that resolution, yet is defending someone who wasn't even attempting to prove said interpretation. Also, the most fundamental argument for my case is that my opponent NEVER (and I mean NEVER) addresses what my opponent is addressing in his case. For that matter, he never even accuses these points of being flawed. Through not addressing any of my points, he lets them stand as true. Given that my opponent is advocating that "from a judging standpoint", it is his job to show that PRO won based on what HE said. Thus, my opponent is not even upholding his side of the resolution in this debate, thus further reason as to why he cannot win. The only point more crucial than the above point is that I accussed my opponent of having presented no evidence for his side in that debate. I even explained why a mere online testimony from him is inadmissible and gave my opponent a realistic means of winning the debate. Simply saying "Pizza rocks my world because it does" is not sufficient With all that said, I stand by my reasons as to why I advocated the Con ballot: "Reason to vote con: My opponent has not defended his case and has basically produced irrelevant information in all of his rounds. At the same time, I provided reasons to support my stance. Thus, I urge you to vote con." Back to you.