After this debate concludes, my opponent will receive at least one vote.

Ladies and gentleman, CON outright states that he has no means of winning this debate with the following statement: "The fact is, it is nigh impossible for CON to win this debate." Thus, considering this statement, you have an objective reason to vote PRO. But alas, to pacify CON, let us address the rest of his response. First, take note of the comment section as there is a user who is already planning to vote CON on this. If he still intends to donate his vote to CON, then this renders most of CON's response even more irrelevant than it already is; CON's response relies on the idea that I will be the one to vote CON, but as he has already "persuasively demonstrated", it will at least be in one user's interest to vote CON. You should also note that this was before I even posted this round or suggested that I would vote CON. Second, I disagree with the notion that there is no way to argue in this debate. In fact, let us observe a similar seemingly impossible to win debate: http://www.debate.org... The instigator's position is "I will not get a challenger for this debate." One would think that merely getting a challenger would secure the win for the instigator in that debate, but due to the contenders arguments that relied on the wording of the resolution, the votes are currently (as I'm posting) in the contender's favor. There are many ways around these kinds of debates, but they require that you think outside the box. There are indeed ways to argue against the very topic I've created and come out with a win, but I am not obligated to provide them here as that is CON's job. Me providing them would be the equivalent to a boxer punching himself in the face during a boxing match. Rather I will simply list a way to keep me from winning. The easiest way to keep me from winning this debate is to simply never allow it to become a debate. One of the ways to do this is to not accept the debate in the first place. However, by accepting this debate, CON is agreeing to argue in the position of the contender. Take note of the following statement that is provided before one signs up for a debate: " I accept the challenge and will debate this member." Like anyone else could, CON agreed to this before being able to establish himself as CON in this debate. So since that is the case, why is it that CON has accepted the challenge, but is now REFUSING IT? Furthermore, as CON, his job is to be AGAINST the above topic of debate (this description can be found here: http://www.debate.org... ). As he has clearly stated in his round, he is not against the above topic of debate, but rather myself, as a user (hence his claims on my foul practices and those being reason to vote against me) for making this seemingly impossible to win debate. Through accepting MY CHALLENGE and not doing what is requested by the rules of debate.org, it is CON who is being abusive; rejecting the challenge entirely after having "officially" accepted is a very heinous practice. As for there being no conclusive evidence, let us remember that as my own self, I am the ultimate authority on what I think/feel. Furthermore, as the instigator, I only have to prove that the resolution is more likely than any other alternative. It would be in my interest to vote CON because as CON points out, this would insure a win regardless of what was said during the round. As even CON believes, my goal is to win this debate. CON gives no reason to suggest that it is unlikely that I will vote, nor does he give a reason to suggest that I will vote PRO (under the circumstances which he presents). If he attempts to turn around and provide reasons in the next round, you are to dismiss them. CON resorts to the ad hominem fallacy through claiming that I'm only making this debate to raise my win record( thus being reason to vote for him). Usually, I wouldn't even dignify such a claim with a response, but since I have the space to do so, observe the comment section here: http://www.debate.org... Notice how I respond to a troll who threatens to go across all of my debates and vote against me? I provoke him by telling him that I couldn't care less (not to mention the rest of my smarmy replies). Does this sound like the behavior of someone who really cares about his win record on this site? Next, CON gives you a reason to dismiss his conclusive evidence argument as he concedes to the idea that I will vote for him. As suggested above, CON has already decided to concede to my case in his round 1, thus I win by default. If he tries to go back in the next round and change his position on this issue or any other issue which he established, you are not to consider his response as that is abusive. As for telling you to vote because this debate is unfair to him, this is clear usage of the appeal to pity fallacy. Better yet, let me demonstrate the absurdity of his plea with an example: A pro wrestler (who we will call Mr. Bulk) decides to hold a wrestling tournament in which the objective of the challengers is simply to defeat him in a one on one match. A scrawny out of shape man named Maury hears about this tournament, reads the description of Mr.Bulk, and decides to enter. When it finally comes time for Maury to have his match with Mr. Bulk, he turns to the judges of the match and tells them that he should be considered the winner since the match is clearly in Mr. Bulk's favor; he thinks the match is impossible to actually win through wrestling since Mr. Bulk is not only much larger than him, but is also a pro at wrestling. Now tell me, do you honestly think the judges are going to give Maury the win for the match? Of course not. The objective of the wrestling match was to win through out wrestling Mr. Bulk rather than to win out of the judges pity. Same here. CON's objective in this debate match is to win through debating against the topic, not win out of your pity. To add, he knew what he was up against and still signed up for this debate by his own free will. You're free to pity him for signing up to a debate which he came in knowing he couldn't win, but don't hand him a vote for it. And if he really wanted to put a stop to debates like these, he'd contact the Webmaster and ask him to cancel this debate. Furthermore, he wouldn't have taken this challenge in this first place. Like responding to trolls, giving attention to debates like these only encourages them. And as suggested above, I don't care about my win ratio, so his method wouldn't discourage me from creating more debates like this one. At the end of every debate, the voting section ask "Who won this DEBATE." It doesn't ask "Who do you approve of" or "Who do you like more." This is Debate.org. CON has stated that he should win the round because he has pointed out my debauchery and has explained the logical fallacy which I have attempted to unveil. Ironically enough, the only fallacy (well, at least one of ) here is CON telling you to vote on something that by no means concerns the actual debate (red herring). Whether or not you can consider my practices foul, how does that prove the topic wrong? Why should you vote on something that completely disregards the actual debate? What CON is encouraging is a symbol of everything that is wrong with this website; he is encouraging the practice of disregarding the actual DEBATES. Are you really going to let him get away with this? This debate doesn't just concern HQ or myself, but it concerns all users of debate.org, so stand up to CON. Show him that there are people on this website who still care about the debates. Show him that your votes can't be won by fallacious appeals. Show him that debate.org is intolerant of the practice of not actually debating. SHOW HIM THE TRUTH by voting PRO. Thank you.