I am debating myself

Lets start on the conduct. He claims that he just meant that round 1 wasn't for arguments, and that definitions weren't limited to the first round. I find this hard to believe; if definitions weren't limited to round 1, it would enable me to easily bring up a new definition in round three or four and try to semantics my way to a win. Now my opponent appears intelligent enough to recognize that, and as such most likely put in this rule to keep definitions to round 1, as is customary in most debates. However, obviously I called out his mistake in giving them in round 2, so this point must flow con. Honestly though, I suggest voters to not make the debate decide on this, just conduct at most. Burden Pro: I accepted we both have BoP I'm aware of that. That why I gave my timeframe argument. Its an offensive contention that disproves the resolution. My other two arguments deal with his inability to support the BoP, which is still within my grounds. Now to contentions. 1. Paradox Pro: Premise three (questioning the resolution) is false and assumed I will quote my opponent and allow him to disprove this. "So am I really debating myself? One might say no (something even I'm inclined to say so). " He directly questions the resolution and even comes out and admits he's inclined to say that the resolution isn't taking place. My opponent defeats his own argument. Pro: Straw man, resolution is about whether the debate is occurring, not if it is possible If the resolution isn't possible, then how can it be occurring? ! Pro: TV example; you can not know something but still verify it First, the example he gives is extremely unrealistic. How would you not know if you owned a TV? Secondly, he is wrong in his conclusion. If something is verified, then you can't be questioning it. For example, my laptop is (visually) verified to be on my lap right now. Therefore, I do not question whether it is possible for the laptop to be there. In the same respect, if he is indeed debating himself, then he shouldn't have to question whether it is possible. Therefore my argument stands; if he questions the resolution, which he has done in his previous quote, then he cannot prove the resolution. Pro: Rez doesn't have to be verifiable. God isn't verifiable, yet it is still a debate Supporters of God argue that he is verifiable from the different Holy Books, complexity of nature, miracles, etc. This example is not applicable. Also, resolution needs to be verifiable. If it isn't pro cannot win. For example, if I create a topic titled "There are things so small that human technology cannot see", then that cannot be verified because we obviously cant see these things to prove the resolution true. In that case, con should win because there is no way pro can show his resolution to be true. It is the same in this debate. If he cant prove the resolution true, then he should lose. Pro: "This" debate isn't a debate under my logic because it is unverifiable However, it is verifiable. We see the website in front of us and the arguments presented. We can verify this is indeed a debate. We cant do the same with my opponent's because of the arguments I've previously given. 2. Provability Pro: Doesn't disprove resolution 1. No warrant as to why 2. Wouldn't matter regardless; I gave an offensive argument through Timeframe, simply attacking your burden with this argument is still con ground. Pro: You don't have to believe in an opinion to debate it This is non-responsive to my argument. My contention states that he cannot prove to us that his debate is actually happening, since it is merely something he is claiming is true. I mentioned nothing about opinions being required for a debate. I'm not sure if my argument was misinterpreted or what, but in any case it was not responded to. 3. Timeframe. This is the most important point in the round. If voters read nothing else, read the arguments we have made about this. Arguments: Pro: Agrees to premise 1 It has now been established that the resolution must be taking place 100% of the time until this debate has ended. If I can prove that at any point my opponent is not debating himself, I win, as this is what he agrees he must prove. Pro: Debate is still occurring even if there are intervals where arguments are not being made or thought up. He defines "debating" as "To discuss or argue formally". If he is asleep, which he agrees he does, then he is not "discussing or arguing formally". He is sleeping. Therefore, it is proven that there is a timeframe at which he is not debating. Therefore the resolution is not true for the agreed timeframe. Vote con based off this alone. Pro: My logic would say that I'm not debating my opponent if I'm away. Indeed I'm not, especially according to your definition. I'm not arguing formally with you if I am asleep, so I am only debating you if I am typing or thinking of an argument, such as right now. His conclusion Pro: I don't refute his proof, and give none of my own My entire case was built around him having no proof for the resolution. And as previously stated, my Timeframe argument was direct offense which refutes the resolution. My conclusion: His definition of "debate" destroys his defense against Timeframe. Since he has conceded that he must be debating himself during the entire duration of "this" debate, and he agrees that he is sleeping some of the time, then his definition proves that the resolution is not true.