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

My opponent makes some fuel crucial mistakes in his analysis. Let's start with those. Contention 2: The Word Have =================== 1A. Logical argues that my cross-ex answers is damning to my case. This couldn't be farther from the truth! Logical argues that I should have realized, because of our last debate, that he meant for the debate to be about his suspicion when he was creating it. Unfortunately for him, his actions are completely opposed to this notion. First, he never clarified that he meant for the topic to be about his past suspicion. On the contrary he debated it like any other issue in the round. And second, he could have changed this topic to read, "As I'm typing this I have as suspicion that. .. .. blah blah". The fact that he never did this only proves that his intention was not for this debate to be about the past, rather he wanted an open ended debate that we could both argue. 1B. He additionally argues that my fourth cross-ex answer somehow hurts me. I'd argue that it doesn't, I said in certain circumstances. The circumstance in which a debater has a pivotal interest, on winning the round, for the point is one such circumstance. If Logical could just say that he meant this to be in the past then he could also say that his suspicion is true. Thus there would be no way for me to win this round. Next my opponent decides to tear down my case the 'old fashion way'. @. @ A. First he argues that I ignore the context. However my opponent apparently forgets the argument he makes a little while later when he argues that a debate round is "a discussion involving opposing points, an argument. " Which means all of his analysis about formal debate is moot. Additionally my opponent is correct when he states, "In essence, the debate concerns entirely what two debaters have obtained from past experiences/research. " Sadly this only supports my case. Every new moment that passes becomes the past. When I make my last speech everything will be in the past and he will have lost. Next my opponent attempts to deconstruct my example by saying that there is no looking up to see the cat in a debate round. This point would be valid in a high school policy debate round because they don't have access to news in round. Furthermore their round only lasts all of 90 minutes. However this is not policy debate from high school instead it is just debate. Consider my opponents definition. And considering that this debate round can take 30 days we have ample ability to examine the world around us. Which means this debate round will be evaluated as par the present based on the knowledge we have of the past (a normal highschool or college debate round is evaluated this way also, they used their opponents past remarks as evidence for positions). Finally my opponent makes a random ad hominem attack on me. He points out that I participate in debate rounds for the win only. This kind of attack makes no sense in the context of this debate and shouldn't we weighed for anything. Of course you should also notice that my opponent is winning the debate round he references which means that the points I tried to prove were unlikely the best. Lol And now we get to the big argument: Point Number 3! ! : ============ Debating when you're tired can often be a rather unfortunate event. Sometimes you make a mistake which will completely lose you the debate round. Such is the case of my opponent. This point has some fundamental errors which simply destroy my opponent's case. Let's look at them. My opponent makes three key points: 1. Debate is "A discussion involving opposing points; an argument. " 2. A round is "any complete course, series, or succession: The strike was settled after a long round of talks; a round of parties" 3. "This debate can never actually end". So what does this actually mean? The example of a round says that the strike was settled after a long round of talks. However, we are not talking about talks, we are speaking debate rounds. Thus to be contextually correct, for this debate, the example would read: "The strike was settled after a long round of debates. " In other words a round of debate, under my opponents definition would be the COMPLETE argument going back and fourth until it was over. You will all notice that his definition of round is "any complete course, series, or succession. " Thus the complete series of arguments in this entire debate will be considered a round. My opponent also makes the point that he will keep the debate round going into the comment section. These are all solid points. But he couples this with a statement which is simply ruinous, "this debate can never actually end. " If this debate can never truly end then this round can never truly end. Meaning. .. .. 1. First it means that I can never truly forfeit the round because it will never end. Keep in mind that a round is a complete set, or in this case the complete set of arguments. If, as my opponent states, this debate round will never end then I can never forfeit it. 2. Secondly it means that forfeiting is now an impossibility. Even if my opponent had not said that this debate round would last forever I would still have participated into it. Since there is only one round, a round being the complete thing, then I cannot fully forfeit that which I have already participated in. I have already made arguments and debated thoroughly with my opponent. I could forfeit my next speech, but I could not forfeit the debate round. Finally on this point my opponent states this, "That my opponent merely failing to participate in one sequence of our discussion could be considered a forfeit. " This is quite simply, not true. The topic of this debate round is, "I have a suspicion that my opponent will forfeit at least one round of this debate. " Thus I could forfeit one of my speeches but that would have no impact on the resolution. In order for Logical to win he must prove he has a suspicion that I will forfeit a ROUND not a SPEECH . As a round is the entire set of debates on a subject, there is only one round on this subject. And since I have already responded many times I can never fully forfeit this debate round. Thus my opponent, upon reading this has realized the impossibility of me forfeiting and no longer supposes it possible. He probably never did. Contention 3: ========= 1. All my opponent does is extend his contentions from above. Fine, I'll extend my counter contentions from above. Also extend my argument here about how Logical-Master misses the context of the debate round. Logical's New Argument #1 ================== 1. Apparently my opponent was not advocating that I must have moved on from this site but rather that I likely moved on from this site. I'm not sure how this argument functions in the debate round. I'm arguing that I haven't moved on and that there is a more likely likelihood. Thus my argument still stands. Furthermore I'd argue that what I have to say is not only known by my opponent but is also known by a great deal of the debate community on debate. org. People vote for whoever is 'popular'. The fact that I'm now participating in Logical's tournament and this debate round disprove that I have 'moved on'. It is far more probable that I was attempting to loose popularity. Thereby, Logical-Master has little reason to ever suspect that I would forfeit any part of this debate. 2. Even if you were to ignore my testimony I would still win this point. I have two logical reasons as to why this is true where as my opponent has done nothing to refute either. 3. First, a judge/reader should only consider points in this round so the fact that I have ever said I was too busy is pointless. Secondly it makes intuitive sense that I would say i was too busy. Otherwise people who would otherwise dislike me for forfeiting would have a legitimate excuse for why I was forfeiting.