It should not be possible to have a shared burden of proof in a debate

EYPCon has stopped arguing this so I guess it's conceeded.Con's amazingly-late counter-modelI will agree that arguing best is ultimately the standard of all debating. I will not contest that speakers who are more funny, interesting and engaging should be given higher marks. These things are all about persuasion. But what good is persuasion if the thing you're persuading people of is not what you're trying to argue? If debates were judged on argumentation alone, then the affirmative would never need to do any engagement, as they could win the debate by proving ANYTHING, using their persuasion. The reason why motions exist in debating is to give the affirmative team a single thing to prove. The whole point is that the affirmative persuades us of the thing given in the resolution, not just whatever they'd like.Not only is this true, but it's better as well. It takes more skill to be able to defend any resolution than to defend only those resolutions you really like. It adds to the excitement because it puts you outside of your comfort zone. It makes debating more interesting and challenging. It encourages you to think critically about things you've probably never thought about before. But ultimately what it all comes back to is this - one should not do a debate if it is possible it will lead to an indecisive result. This is because debating is competitive. I've said this consistantly throughout all the rounds and still my opponent cannot respond to this simple point. I even made this case in round one so my opponent could read it before accepting the debate. Indeed my opponent has agreed with my reasoning that debates are competitive.My opponent's reasoning, furthermore, doesn't lead to his conclusion. His reason is that "the best way to judge a debate can come down to issues other than who proved what". His conclusion is that shared burdens of proof should be possible in debating. The conclusion that logically follows from his premise, however (which is actually not a premise but a random personal opinion) is that you shouldn't have burdens of proof at all. A shared burden of proof still comes down to issues of who proved what, just like a standard burden of proof. However, non-burden-of-proof debates, like I've said so often, are not what this debate is about.TautologyI've dealt with this before - a tautology is defining the resolution in a self proving way. As I said in round two, a tautological definition is not what the motion is about. Ever. So really you're not defending the motion but something else, which undermines the whole point of debating.Unreasonable BOPMy opponent claims he's used this as an argument before - he hasn't. The point is that a BOP is never unreasonable. If an affirmative team defines the motion in an unreasonable way, that's the same as a tautology.NapoleonI agree that capitalising on other's mistakes is better than saying nothing - I am simply arguing that saying nothing is not unconvincing, particulary if convincing is not necessary because pro has failed their burden of proof. This is because one can clearly be less convincing than saying nothing, so saying nothing must be convincing in some way. In Eastern debating, saying nothing was fairly common in debates until recently. It wasn't a sign of a lack of effort - rather a sign that they were listening, and exercising prudence with their speech. The point of turning up was to say something just in case pro did meet their standard of proof, which was usually quite frequent.I disagree that stronger rhetoric means saying as much as possible. If you listen to the great speeches of the ages, most were delivered slowly and carefully, using few words to express profound ideas. I disagree that stronger argument is necessarily not promoted by not saying anything if an argument is un-necessary. Debating style is very much an individual thing. People with very different styles can still be effective debaters. I think my message overall is that non-shared burdens deliver all of these as well. Negative teams are encouraged to speak up. If they don't, they won't get far. If the affirmative says anything in support of the resolution, the negative needs to respond in order to have a chance. Since almost every single affirming team I've ever seen has made an attempt, however bad, to attack the resolution (even very young children can do it), the idea that a negative team can win by shutting up is absurd. That doesn't mean saying nothing is unconvincing. It just means it's less convincing.Ultimately pro says we should allow shared BOP for double-barrelled motions just in case something happens that is already covered by ordinary BOP, and that will never happen anyway. I say that's not really worth considering."Spirit of debating"You don't undermine the spirit of anything by making it more vague. The best way to undermine debating is to stop it from happening, and if debates cannot be judged properly, they won't happen. Debaters will lose interest because they might as well just be having an argument at the pub instead without an adjudicator. Adjudicators will lose interest because they don't like being put into impossible positions. And nobody wants to organise a tournament that they can't do a draw for. So rather than uphold the spirit of debating, shared burdens of proof destroy it.ConclusionMy opponent has never challenged my idea that shared BOP can lead to impossible-to-judge situations, and that a decisive outcome to every debate is important. Therefore my burden of proof is met. Con has rather sought to confuse the issue by bringing up examples that don't even work and appealing to his own sense of fair. His examples have shifted and been dropped constantly, while his sense of fair isn't exactly an objective standard for this consequential issue. Few of my counter-arguments have even been adknowledged. The resolution is affirmed.