Pro Should Have Won the Referenced Debate

Full resolution: Resolved: In the debate of "Who owns the NUMBER?? (http://www.debate.org...)" Pro should have won. If you do not wish to argue using this resolution then do not take this debate. I ask that this remain a semantics-free debate and that the Contender not warp the true purpose of this debate which is to ascertain whether or not Pro should have won the above debate. ~~~~~~~ Arguments ~~~~~~~ Contention 1 The Contender introduced hi main argument in the last round. This made it impossible for the Instigator to respond to it within the confines of the debate. His first round was wasted asking for clarifications, which is something that could have easily been done in the comments section or through private messaging. In addition to being invalid his response did not even address the issue of the debate and instead just said that neither of them should receive the #32 even though payment was rendered so that supposedly Nick owned the #32. Contention 2 The key points of the debate were not so incoherent to justify wasting a round asking for clarification. In the comments section of the debate the Contender claims to need clarification on two key points of the debate, and another, different two in his round one response. 1.) He claimed to not know the Instigator's stance on the rebate's resolution. 2.) He claimed to not know who was receiving the beer as payment. 3.) He claimed to not know the significance of the numbers. 4.) He claimed to not know why Mike agreed to the trade. The first is absurd, the Instigator clearly states his position no the debate resolution in the last sentence of the opening round, in all caps, "But NICK OWNS THE NUMBER." The second, while not as obvious is still easy to glean. The opening scenario states that, "...Nick comes into my office with Mike there and tells MIKE he will trade his number to MIKE for a case of BECKS BEER." This excerpted portion informs the reader that Nick is the one that is receiving the beer in exchange for the #34. The third really has nothing to do with the debate, the significance of the numbers is not the issue. The issue is that a tangible product was traded for an intangible, potential one that turned out to not exist, therefore was the trade valid? The significance of the numbers is moot. The fourth is also moot, it does not matter why Mike agreed to the trade. Contention 3 Both sides share burden of proof. Since the debate resolution is phrased as a question it would be the job of both Instigator and Contender to prove their side, the instigator took a stance, this stance was not validly contested and the Contender did not have a valid counter-stance as his argument for his side was proposed in the last round, and at least to me did not provide a compelling reason to show why Nick should not get the number that he paid for. ~ In conclusion had all voters on the debate voted objectively the spread would have been: Conduct: Tie, neither debater exhibited uncivil behavior within the confines of the debate. Spelling/Grammar: Con, Pro abuses punctuation and capitalization. Arguments: Pro, as outlined above. Sources: Tie, neither side had any. This vote spread would have left the end score of the debate 18 - 6 with Pro emerging victorious. I look forward to my opponent's response.