Pro can answer 5 questions from Con

Thank you for accepting. I must point out one fallacy in my opponent's definition of "Answer" before I begin.A quick look at the Resolution and Con's definition of Answer show a discrepancy. The Resolution contains the verb 'answer while Con's definition contains the noun 'answer'.Applying his definition to the resolution makes it sound similar to this,'Pro can the correct solution to a question in a quiz or test 5 questions from Con.'That statement is utter nonsense without proper grammar, however I agreed to let Con choose this definition. So I must defend that very resolution.I. Rebuttals"Pro has affirmed that he is right."This is a baseless claim. I never affirmed I was right, I affirmed I could 'the correct solution to a question in a quiz or test 5 questions from Con.' For all you know, I could very well be left."He must prove that the answer is correct in an empirical and verifiable way."According to who? I never gave my opponent the option to make his own rules for this debate. I must prove the resolution true in an empirical and verifiable way, not your questions."A single unanswered or incorrectly answered quiz question results in a Con victory."I must say, sincerely doubt your future prediction abilities. You have no way of knowing who will receive the most votes after this debate concludes, and assuming that number will correlate to the number of questions answered is not supported anywhere in your claim.So as I have shown, I am not at all obligated to answer Con's questions. I am only obligated to empirically prove the resolution made above using the definitions provided by Con.II. ConstructPro can the correct solution to a question in a quiz or test 5 questions from Con.Now, proving a resolution like this can be extremely difficult. Imagine me saying, 'Sun the hot be, revolve moon Earth.' and forcing you to verify it. I'd imagine you can't. Now on to the verifying!Let's start by breaking this statement apart."Pro can the correct solution..." It is not entirely impossible to correct this statement. All that is required is a good dictionary. http://i.word.com...Let's say 'the' was actually an adverb. This statement now entails that an entity is essentially stating that "Pro" has the ability to do something, to another entity/object known as a 'correct solution'."...to a question in a quiz or test..."This portion is meant to convey that the 'something' "Pro" has the ability to do applies to a question that is within a quiz or test. The simplest of the three parts of this resolution"... 5 questions from Con." The final statement in this is saying this 'question' "Pro" has 'something' to do with contained within a quiz or test is derived from 5 questions provided by Con.By putting all of this together, we can confirm that the resolution is a statement about an entity (unknown) telling another entity/object (correct solution) that Pro (AlexanderOc) has an ability to do something that relates to the questions held within a quiz or test provided by Con.How do I empirically prove this? The same way you empirically prove anything, by showing observable evidence. Were the resolution to be "somebody was punched" and I presented a video of a man punching another man, this is observable evidence yes? So in order to prove that an entity made a statement about me to another entity, I will show you it happening. So essentially, By giving me the noun definition of "Answer" Con has waived my need to answer his question, turned the Resolution into utter nonsense, and has made absolutely false claims within his Construct.And with that, I conclude my rebuttal. Good luck Con!