Robert Frost's poem "The Road Not Taken" sends a positive message

My extraordinarily difficult burden of proofMy opponent starts his main argument by saying that I have given myself an extraordinarily burden of proof. Apparently, I must now prove that the poem cannot have a subjectively positive meaning towards any individual no matter what. I don’t know why my opponent misinterpreted the resolution to this degree, but clearly I am not required that individual meanings per person must all be negative. If my opponent truly thought this was the case, he would have given his main argument by simply stating "I believe this poem sends a positive message". There would have been no need for explanation or interpretation of the poem, because according to my opponent, he only needs to prove that this poem sends a positive message to at least one individual. Of course, my opponent didn't do that, which proves that even he doesn't think this burden of proof is fair or accurate in terms of the resolution.Debates here aren’t judged by who is right and who is wrong, they’re judged by who was able to provide the best argument to support the side of the resolution they were assigned to. Thus, I am only required to provide a better argument than my opponent (with respect to the resolution) to win this debate. Nowhere in the resolution does it say I must prove that every individual’s subjective interpretation of this poem is negative in all circumstances, that is simply ridiculous.My opponent’s main argumentThe first thing I noticed about my opponent’s main argument is that more than half of it isn’t even a main argument, it’s a rebuttal towards the argument that I made. I’d like to point out that in the acceptance round of this debate, I outlined the structure of this debate so that rebuttals would be in the third round. This was done so that my opponent would have only one round to respond to my main arguments, just like I have only one round to respond to his. I urge voters to disregard everything that my opponent has said about my main arguments thus far.What remains from my opponent’s main argument isn’t a lot to respond to. My opponent makes generalized claims about the poem’s meaning without even referencing specific lines or anything of the sort to demonstrate that what he is saying is true. He is expecting you, the reader, to take what he says at face value.The first thing my opponent claims is that the poem teaches that all choices in life are meaningful. This directly contradicts what the speaker says at Line 11. In this line, the speaker reflects that both paths (choices) were completely equal by the time he got far enough down the path. If both choices give the same outcome with little to no difference to the chooser, then how can you claim that choices are meaningful in and of themselves?The next thing my opponent claims is that there is, after all, a positive message in this poem, because the speaker is trying to find meaning in an otherwise meaningless world. However, as much as my opponent would like you to think that there is true meaning in the choices that the speaker makes, that doesn’t change what the poem actually says. In the beginning of the poem, the speaker is optimistic, and he has a hard time picking one of the two paths because he, like my opponent, thinks that there are benefits to picking one path over another. By the third stanza, this attitude changes. The speaker discovers that both choices are now completely the same, as they “equally lay”. Both paths gave no hint that the speaker was even traveling down them, which conflicts with the idea that the speaker supposedly choose a harder path to take. As a result, the speaker is disappointed that there wasn’t a reason to make the choice that he did.To conclude, the speaker discovered that there is no reason to take the harder path, because it will just lead to the same outcomes with no noticeable benefits along the way. Does that sound like a positive message? I urge a negative vote.