I have a suspicion that my opponent will forfeit at least one round of this debate.

So this is what it has come to Logical? I've forfeited so many debates that now you have a suspicion? Nay, I'll make the case that you are quite a liar. Contention 1: The word, 'suspicion' ======================= Defined: imagination of anything to be the case or to be likely. Further clarification, the phrase, 'the case' should be best interpreted as 'true'. In other words suspicion is defined as imagination of anything to be true or to be likely. Seems like a fair definition, no? My argument here is simple. I may have missed debate rounds in the past. Furthermore I've often apologized for missing debate rounds in the past, often with excuses like, "I just had too much school work." Luckily for myself it is summer and I have no school. Thus not only would taking a debate like this be an easy win for me but the knowledge very likely erases Logical's suspicion. Contention 2: The word 'have' ==================== I'd like to point everyone to a similar word to start this argument. The word 'had' is very similar to the word 'have'; in fact they can be swapped in a sentence structure to keep the same basic meaning. I have a spoon. I had a spoon. You will all notice that the second sentence is past tense while the first sentence is present tense. This is pretty damning to Logical's case because it means that Logical must have a suspicion at the very point in which a voter votes. If logical at some point 'had a suspicion' but now no longer does then he loses this debate round. Meaning, if you, as a voter were to vote on this debate, you must assess whether Logical has the suspicion at the very moment in which you vote. As the resolution indicates, this debate will stay in the present tense. The great thing about suspicions is that they can vanish in the face of appealing evidence. For instance, if I were to not forfeit all five rounds and Logical-Master saw this then he would doubtlessly no longer have a suspicion. He may have 'had' a suspicion but he would no longer 'have' one. In effect, he would lose this debate. This of course only offers to bolster my first argument. Since it is so very easy for me to win this debate simply by replying in all five of my posts, it is very likely that I will do so. Thus Logical's suspicion may be gone at this very moment. Contention 3: Having suspicion ==================== Having suspicion: The act of imagining that something is likely or fact. I can imagine many things. I may be able to imagine that I can fly. If I jumped off a table I would no longer imagine that I could fly. Thus I would not have a suspicion that I could fly. In much the same way if I jumped off the table and did fly then I would no longer have a suspicion. I would know that it was a fact that I could fly. Furthermore I'd be living the very experience so I wouldn't be doing any imagining at all. I would be using my five senses to deduce that I was quite effectively flying. (P.s. I can fly) How does this relate? Logical may have a suspicion right now that I will forfeit a round or more. However, if Logical sees me forfeit a round in this debate he will no longer have a suspicion. He will know that it is a fact. No suspicion = loss. Your turn. =)