It is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds

Pro continues to think I am denying that he has classified this debate under politics and has ignored my questioning of why politics is indeed pointless..." I have demonstrated that the argument that politics is pointless is the evidence of which the argument that I have posted this debate is the theory. "I have decided to categorise the debate as politics, because it is as pointless as politics." The word "because" is not used here as reasoning, but as evidence. We can compare this statement to a scenario of which this case is more clearly highlighted: I have decided to categorise the debate as politics, because it is as pointless as politics. Light travels from the Sun's surface to the Earth in 8 minutes, because we can see that the light is green. The latter sentence shows a clear Theory>Evidence sequence, but is as correct as the former. If we compare this to the former, we find that the theory is that I have decided to categorise the debate as politics and the evidence is that it is as pointless as politics. If the latter were a debate, Con would disprove the evidence or, as in this case, show that it is invalid, in order to negate the theory. I would then produce more evidence which may be more stable or valid, for example, ...because we can see that the distance between the Earth and the Sun in metres divided by the speed of radiation in metres per second equals 480 seconds, which can then be divided by sixty, so as to be transferred into minutes, reaching the conclusion that light travels from the Sun's surface to the Earth in 8 minutes. Now, I simply transfer this to the former sentence OF THE SAME STRUCTURE: If the former were a debate, Con would disprove the evidence (that it is as pointless as politics) or, as in this case, show that it is invalid, in order to negate the theory (that I have decided to categorise the debate as politics). I would then produce more evidence which may be more stable or valid, for example, ...because we can see that the evidence I produce is that I have categorised the debate as politics and, in doing so, I have DECIDED to categorise the debate as politics. Although informal, an alternative modern definition of the word, "because", to the classical causal definition is "the reason I am stating this is that" (see reliable link). This is clearly not causal, but of the said 'theory and evidence scenario'. Furthermore, in my opening argument I stated the roles of Pro and Con clearly, yet Con introduces an invalid argument as part of my role and, for the contradiction of this argument, his role also. I have shown that the statement was theory to evidence, but not causal; and that if this is to be the case, my argument is valid, due to new evidence, and unchallenged; and that the original evidence, therefore, lacks the need to be valid; and ultimately, that the arguments concerning this statement is invalid. I do not believe that Con is denying that I have classified this debate under politics and I have not ignored his questioning of why politics is indeed pointless. I have merely demonstrated why the evidence is invalid when I can produce alternative evidence and that the theory is the theory of which Con must negate or disprove. Con, however, has demonstrated simply that he does not understand simple logic, such as this. "As for the voting on debates, if a majority of the voters are of sane mind when reading a debate when someone has forfeited 4 rounds then the person who has forfeited those 4 rounds would lose. I invite the Con to try to find one debate on this website where someone has forfeited 4 rounds and they have won. If the Con cannot find a single debate then that would mean there are NO DEBATES where one person won a debate after forfeiting 4 rounds." Yet, still it would be possible. I have shown in my earlier post that the fact that it is not moral does not mean that it is not possible. Is my opponent suggesting that, if there are NO INSTANCES IN WHICH SOMEONE HAS EVER BEEN CALLED SUUUUUUUUUUULIPONICAFAC, then it is not possible for someone in the future to be called suuuuuuuuuuuliponicafac? Yes, the people who made the decision would not be of sane mind, but it is possible for two parents who have sexual intercourse to be of sane mind. Is my opponent also suggesting that it is impossible for the majority of people voting on this particular debate to be of sane mind? If there is at least one person in the world who is sane of mind, then it is possible, although unlikely (an invalid word, due to preferation in this debate of "impossible"), for that person and no other to vote. As we are dealing with possibility, I merely need to successfully explain why, in a debate, it is possible for a debater to win in an immoral situation. I do not need to find an example. Although there is no example of a person of the said name, I have demonstrated that it is possible for someone to be of that name. "This debate applies to this website because 1) He classified the debate under politics, this site has a politics topic, so it relates to this site 2) He talks about forfeiting 4 rounds in a 5 round debate, he created a 5 round debate, so it relates to this site 3) He posted this debate on this website, so it refers to this website" "This debate relates to this site through 3 different ways, so I assumed that he was referring to this site, if the Pro wanted to argue this applied to any website then he should have clarified that at the start of the debate, not halfway through." Although the debate may be similar to other debates on DDO, this does not mean it is identical. One cannot look at a frog and "assume" that it is a type of fish, because it can swim and has two eyes, so it contains similar characteristics to other fish. In the same way, one cannot look at a debate and "assume" that it is of DDO, because it contains similar characteristics to other debates on DDO. We can compare the statement, "Con argues against that it is possible to win a debate while forfeiting 4 of 5 rounds.", with the statement, "Con argues against that it is possible for an animal to walk on dry land after swimming in a lake with its only two eyes open." When debating the latter, Con could not find characteristics in the described animal and state that this animal must be a fish, so cannot walk on dry land, because it has no legs. In the same way, when debating the former, Con cannot find characteristics in the described debate and state that this debate must be of DDO, so, for a debate to proceed, the first round must not be forfeited. But the Pro would also be unable to challenge the Con's arguments and thus both sides would not be able to counter the others arguments. That would result in a tie. Let us evaluate this scenario: Pro produces a valid argument, e.g. I like cheese =>Con produces an invalid argument, e.g. Cows make noise ==>Pro and Con forfeit all remaining rounds Pro has produced a valid argument, of which Con has not countered. Con has produced an invalid argument, of which Pro does not need to challenge, due to the invalidity. =>Pro has won by default with their argument going unchallenged and all of their opponent's valid arguments going challenged http://dictionary.cambridge.org...