Debate.org version 3 will more likely than not be up and running by the time this debate concludes.

"As CON, he is one who disagrees with the topic." As the contender, and CON, I am considering the resolution to be false. I gave reasoning in my defense section as to why this is so. However, the reason the burden of proof falls upon my opponent is because the instigator has a resolution deviating from the logically valid default position. This is the instigator in this debate. It is also illogical to vote for the instigator in this debate, having no valid evidence for why the argumentation of PRO is dominant over CON, as well as having failed to counter my argument. As well, my point is not that the resolution for PRO is wrong, but merely that it is not right. There is a difference here. Because I argue that it is not definitely right, as evident in my defense section, it is up to the instigator to show the contrary. "It means that they must show the topic is wrong, therefore showing that CON has a burden as well." Again, I have shown the case of PRO to not be definitely right. This is the essential duty (haha) of the contender. I have supplied for this "burden" in my defense section. "CON's problem is that he is treating the concept of "BOF" legalistically (as in court, it is one job's side to demonstrate something beyond the notion of a doubt). However, in a simple debate, both debaters possess the burden of demonstrating which position is more likely." The scale between "simple debate" and a legalistic one is subjective. Where one might end and the other begin is arbitrary. Yet, the rhetoric still applies. And even though the instigator is diminutively analyzing my own defense, I did indeed provide a negating argument. Rhetorically, however, it would be illogical to vote for the instigator, having no logically valid arguments to definitely affirm the argument for PRO. I have definitely affirmed my own arguments to be logically valid. "False. I created the resolution and defined it in R1, ergo, what I say it means is what it means." False. What it says is subjectively interpreted, as my opponent has failed to define what was meant by it. I attempted to be reasonable by my own standards, at to which is hoped to have also sufficed for my opponent. "This is basically a point being used to say that I have no evidence." I asserted the term faith into this debate, seeing as evidence does not constitute as proof. For example, evidence for intelligent design does not mean it happened that way. Admittedly, this point makes it rather difficult for PRO to win, but the point is valid. "Since the evidence tips in my favor, my position is more likely true than my opponent's, thus, using the webmaster's credibility in order to win this particular debate is by no means fallacious." It was agreed by my opponent that the webmaster is not infallible. The evidence does not tip in favor of my opponent, however. Seemingly, my opponent is using the logical fallacy of the circular argument (circulus in demonstrando), claiming "evidence" to be the credibility of the webmaster, while also saying that it is a given that the webmaster is credible, which serves as evidence. But because the evidence is not in favor of my opponent, as the webmaster has not been shown by my opponent to indeed be credible, this contention is in fact in favor of my argument. "Taking this into account, my opponent's RECENT demand for proof ought to be seen as the "moving the goal post" fallacy. Also, to be a credible source, you have to be reliable. And to be reliable, your information must be considered correct most of the time." I was indeed negating the argument with "credibility does not equal certainty." I was saving my characters. This has been a source of contention throughout this debate. Assuming the criterion for reliability, my opponent still fails to show the information of the webmaster to be correct even most of the time. Without this, the webmaster can be considered just as reliable (or unreliable, dependent on the perspective) as any ordinary other. "Runs the website, is well informed on its inner workings, thus pretty much is most likely knowledgeable of everything there is know about the machinations of debate.org." Then why was debate.org version 3.0 not up when it was supposed to be? It is also a non sequitur (it does not follow) to assume, because the webmaster is most likely knowledgeable of the machinations of debate.org that version 3.0 would more likely than not (at least 51%) be up and running specifically by the conclusion of this debate. "Thus, at the beginning of our analysis, the chances V3 being up start at 51% and simply increase rather than decrease." It increases starting at the initial point it had the potential to be up. However, that was long ago in debate.org history. This increase, again, is unknown in scale, and is indeterminate in this debate. And even if it were above 50% (which it is not necessarily), it could still be below 51%. Probability is not always in exact integer form. "This debate isn't about providing conclusive evidence." Evidence that is not conclusive is subjective in value. Subjectivity has no place in determining the winner to this debate (except in this claim, showing it to be erroneous, thus assisting my win.) =P "Most evidence is what I mean by strongest." Perhaps most conclusive evidence, but not necessarily most subjective evidence, would win an argument. "This depends upon interpretation of reality. For instance, all apples are fruit why? Because we CLASSIFY them as fruit based on our own interpretation of what is and what isn't to be considered fruits." When a term is used in syllogism or debate, it should be universally defined (involved members agree on definition to be used). Assuming likewise definitions, and the conventional definition of fruit, it can be derived that the syllogism is true, and, importantly, that deductive reasoning need not rely on inductive reasoning. "CON has agreed with a reason that would quantitatively cause one side to outweigh the other and that is the fact that he has agreed with my argument on how the percentage is in a state of PROGRESSION." To the contrary, I have already shown this progression to potentially be increasing at a low rate. If this progression were low enough, the likelihood of debate.org version 3.0 being up and running could be a mere 37%, less than 51%. Thus, my three inductive reasoning conclusions are valid insofar as proving this debate to be in my favor. "Even a mere one percent can break a 50/50 tie." How does the webmaster equal one percent? Even if it did increase probability (which is not necessarily true), it could be a mere 0.1%, resulting in 50.1% likelihood, thus, in turn, resulting in me winning this debate. Reasons to vote CON for Oboeman: I have supplied an adequate defense section that is logically valid. I have countered the evidence of my opponent, mainly that the webmaster was not proven to be a reliable source, and that the percentage increase of probability does not work in favor of my opponent. The burden of proof was not supplied by my opponent during the debate. Even if the likelihood WAS more likely than not, it could still be, for example, 50.1%, and seeing as my opponent claimed the probability to be at least 51%, my opponent has shown no definite proof for why it is to be at least 51% (as compared to 50.1%), and therefore, this argument works in my favor. The latter two inductive reasoning conclusions in my defense section are valid. Inductive reasoning itself proves to palpably be an asset to my dominant victory. For the above, and the negations presented within the debate, logic dictates a CON vote. Thanks for the fascinating debate, and I look forward to seeing this version 3.0 when the probability is right (even though it does not always dictate absoluteness). Oboeman