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

Well, my position is simple. It entails that if I can show that the probability of debate. org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate to more likely than not be less than or equal to 50% I win. Accordingly, due to questionable statements issued by the webmaster, the likelihood of debate. org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate would be random. In essence, there is no way for one to deduce for sure whether or not this likelihood would place high or low on the percentage scale. To say that it will more likely than not be up and running by the conclusion of this debate is a matter of faith. I will hereby define faith in this debate as any claim that cannot be proven and deduced to be true/false by involved members (debaters in this debate). The purpose of a debate, on a professional level, is to vigilantly obtain mutual agreement between involved members. Mutual agreement has the potential to not be obtained with faith-based reasoning. Thus, unless my opponent can conclusively prove that the probability of debate. org version 3.0 to be up and running from the initiation of this debate to be greater than 50%, the argumentation of my opponent is invalid (as it cannot be proved). "I request that he point precisely to the place where I insinuated that the webmaster holds truth all of the time. " To the contrary, my point is that my opponent has insinuated into arguments that, because the webmaster said so, there is therefore a greater than 50% chance that debate. org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate. I ask my opponent to clarify when I have apparently said that the webmaster holds ALL truth. From what I know, I have said nothing of the sort. Instead, I said, "Voters beware; my opponent begins by using a fallacious statement, assuming that the webmaster must hold truth. " Still, my opponent, as worded in the resolution, is directly implying, with the use of the words, "more likely than not," that there is a greater than 50% (or rather, as stated directly during the Round 1 or my opponent, 51%) chance that debate. org version 3.0 would be up and running by the conclusion of this debate. Merely because of the words of a webmaster, it does not mean this percentage rate can be achieved given the terms. "[The webmaster is] the highest authority and of the most knowledge concerning this website. " Credibility does not equal certainty. Again, my opponent must PROVE that the probability of debate. org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate (as stated initially) is at least 51%. "The Webmaster is either Phil or Crystal. Though what relavance is there here? " I posed a question, just as my opponent has done during cross-examination. The answers received may help to determine further lines of inquiry or terms of essential debate. The point is, I asked the question so I could choose whether or not I wanted to pursue a sub-argument here, dependent upon the response of my opponent. "Quite the contrary. It is rather reasonable for us to assume that debate. org V3 would be up sooner rather than later…when developing something, the probability of it being completed increases the more it is being worked on. " Quite the contrary; it is rather unreasonable to assume that debate. org version 3.0 would necessarily be up sooner rather than later. Though when developing something, the likelihood of it being completed does often increase the more it is being worked on, this does not necessarily mean the probability of debate. org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate is at least 51%. As well, the webmaster could have gotten sick, or perhaps was even getting tired of debate. org. The point is, neither my opponent nor I can derive that for certain. Indeed, this debate is apparently revolving around probability theoreticals and the such. I have provided a case of my own, as to which I have already defended. However, it is up to my opponent to prove the probability of debate. org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate to be at least 51%. "I wholeheartedly agree that evidence does not constitute as proof, hence, why I have "likelihood" built into the resolution. " I was inferring to the fact that my opponent has insinuated webmaster validity of claims into this debate. This potential "evidence" does not constitute proof. I ask my opponent ho this quantifies as making the probability of debate. org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate to be at least 51%. As well, the side with the strongest "evidence" does not necessarily hold truth. Can my opponent prove that it does? "What is the meaning of "this" debate? " This debate – noun – current debate in progress between L-M and Oboeman. See the below link for further detail: . http://www.debate.org... Deductive reasoning relies of syllogisms, and also uses logic to derive a conclusion. Deductive reasoning can (and will, assuming vigilant debate) be agreed upon between involved members, which would thus obtain mutual agreement. Next, the position and argumentation of my opponent is illogical. As for as I have seen thus far, my opponent has yet to determine and prove the probability rate of debate. org version 3.0 being up and running by the conclusion of this debate to be at least 51%. The main burden of proof falls upon my opponent here. I can explain why it might be more likely for it to not be up and running, or equally likely. Either one would suffice. Although, to an extent, likelihood may somewhat correlate with inductive reasoning, it still does not mean quantitative values can be yielded and produced. Can my opponent specifically and explicitly quantify this inductive reasoning to show a favorable probability value? "All he does is label the word "reasonable" on it and request that you take his argument into consideration rather than mine. " Regardless, the main burden of proof still falls upon my opponent, to prove and derive that the probability of debate. org version 3.0 being activated (up and running) by the conclusion of this debate to be, at the least, 51%. However, though, I said the above statement to make a point, to be discussed enthrallingly in further rounds. This goal has obviously been accomplished quite readily. Even though the main burden of proof has been determined to fall upon my opponent (instigator) in this debate, I still have a defense. Inductive reasoning, my point is, as my opponent has so readily agreed with, is subjective. I attempted it (although used it to make a point), and the argumentation of my opponent is essentially premised upon it. With a single strike, I can cause its downfall. Mainly, fate alone will determine whether or not debate. org version 3.0 is to be implemented by the conclusion of this debate. And fate is unknown, as the future has yet to occur. Yet, though, inductive reasoning can show the probability to be "more likely than not," but can also show it to be equally likely or even less likely. Thus, one could even claim that my entire defense relies on these facts of inductive reasoning. Therefore, I can even have inductive reasoning itself, generally in favor of and to aid in my defense. I show that, because inductive reasoning can point either way in this debate, it must be avoided in regards to explicitly determining absolute percentage values. Deductive reasoning, indeed, dictates that the use of mere inductive reasoning evidence is flawed (and, as well, does not constitute as proof). See above for why this is so. I have already outlined, above, deductive reasoning supporting a clear CON win.