Pick your own debate 2!

My opponent's last round was nothing but a series of responses saying that MG argued the wrong resolution. This is completely unjustified. Let's break down the resolution by splitting it into three parts: (1) A thing (2) Should do (3) An action "Should", indicates the point of contention, detailing an imperative of what is to be done based on certain moral criterion. Here is a similar example: Resolution: (1) Joe (2) Should (3) Be declared the winner of Tic-Tac-Toe according to the rules of Tic-Tac-Toe". PRO: Joe should be declared the winner of Tic-Tac-Toe because he created three symbols in a row before his opponent did, and according to the rules, he wins. The resolution is affirmed. CON: It is 100% true that in that particular game, if Joe is declared the winner, 5 million innocent people will die. This is a legitimate moral argument as to why Joe should NOT be declared the winner of Tic-Tac-Toe, even according to the rules. If he is declared the winner, terrible things will happen. PRO: But, the rules say that he wins. Your point is useless. This is exactly how the other debate went down. Please read: (1) The statistics of those Major League Baseball players who, in the late 1990s until 2004, otherwise considered the height of the "Steroid Era" by MLB fan, were known users of PEDs or who were almost certainly using PEDs (2) should (3)still be held as legitimate in assessing those players' talent relative to other MLB players. IAAD focused his argument on how steroid users don't have an unfair advantage in assessing talent relative to other ball players, and thus, those scores should BE HELD AS LEGITIMATE. In regards to my analogy, he was proving that Joe legitimately formed three symbols in a row before his opponent, pertaining to the rules of Tic-Tac-Toe. If he won according to the rules, he should be declared the winner. MG made a different argument. He said that if the scores were HELD AS LEGITIMATE, regardless of whether or not the scores are legitimate, then a number of morally negative implications occur. These morally negative implications override the importance of IAAD's arguments involving the mild nature of steroid use. In regards to my analogy, MG was proving that Joe should not be declared the winner (even if he is the winner by the rules) since 5 million innocent people will die. The deaths of the millions override the integrity of Tic-Tac-Toe. There was absolutely nothing wrong with MG's arguments. They did not violate the resolution in any way, and they were not semantics arguments. My opponent has the audacity to state that I have not proven that MG's arguments were valid when he himself has no evidence as to why they were invalid. Now, let us examine the only important argument to IAAD's case: The minimal effect of steroids and the level playing field IAAD argues that reported steroid users eventually sank in ranking and that the benefits of steroids don't help base-ball related muscles. He also asserts that most ballplayers used steroids while offering nothing but hearsay as evidence. MG counters this by noting that the effects of steroids will generally help with aspects of training since they logically increase strength and endurance, as well as the baseball related muscles. IAAD's only counter is that MG has no exact proof as to the extent of these relevant increases. However, IAAD himself has provided no proof saying that the extent is negligible. He held the burden of proof and sufficient doubt was cast on his assertion. That, and along with the fact that IAAD had no real evidence for his claim about most players using steroids, leads to a failure to meet his burden and affirm the resolution. To conclude: The resolution set forth by IAAD was a standard "A should B" type of resolution. His resolution is analogous to my hypothetical "Tic-Tac-Toe" resolution and could be argued from a variety of moral values. IAAD argues that steroids have minimal effect and that everyone was using steroids, making the scores fair amongst comparison to each other. This makes the comparisons legitimate and if this is the case, then the scores should be held as legitimate. MG argues that even if the scores are legitimate, the act of holding them as legitimate has severe moral consequences. He also offers counters to IAAD's arguments about steroids having minimal effect. In addition, IAAD has absolutely no trustworthy source for his assertion that most players were using steroids, refused to counter MG's valid arguments about the moral repercussions, stated important points without sources, and shoved inappropriate source burden on MG. IAAD did not deserve to win. He should have lost, but I assume that they tied. It is my opponent's burden to prove that IAAD objectively won. Thank you.