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

Pro claims that his own statement was based on his decision, not of any rational thinking, common sense, reasoning etc. That means that Pro's idea that "politics are pointless" is flawed, and therefore is wrong. Argument goes to me" As I have not yet defined in this case "because", from "I have decided to categorise the debate as politics, because it is as pointless as politics.", I now define it not as reasoning, but as evidence. I have hereby used that "it is as pointless as politics" as evidence for the theory that I have decided to categorise the debate as politics. I do not claim that the production of the statement was based on my decision. I claim that the subject of the statement was of the decision, preventing the opposition from arguing against the notion of what is in fact not the subject, but mere evidence. This argument will progress as follows: Pro argues A, because of evidence B => Con argues against A by disproving B ==> Pro produces a more solid C, evidence for A ===> Con must attempt to disprove C (this round) or ===> Con must directly disprove A Although Con has not disproved A, he has disproved B, thereby temporarily negating A. I can now produce C, evidence for A. 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*. I have now produced evidence for the theory that "I have decided to categorise the debate as politics", of which Con must disprove, once again, temporarily negating A, or directly disproving A. Possibility is different to morality or righteousness. It may be righteous or moral for Pro to lose or tie in the debate, but it is, nevertheless, possible for Pro to win. Is my opposition suggesting that it is impossible for a voter to vote for Con when it is moral to vote for Con? It is impossible for a particular scenario to occur => It is impossible for any causes of this scenario to occur This can be traversed to the following: It is impossible for any causes of a particular scenario to occur => It is impossible for this scenario to occur It is possible for a particular scenario to occur => It is possible for at least one cause of this scenario to occur This can also be traversed to the following: It is possible for at least one cause of a particular scenario to occur =>It is possible for this scenario to occur Therefore, if it is possible for a voter to vote for Pro when Pro has forfeited 4 of 5 rounds, it is possible for Pro to win a debate when Pro has forfeited 4 of 5 rounds. I have not defined of which website, company or general scenario this debate has taken place. How does Con know this debate was not of differing rules to DDO's, in which a debate can proceed if Con forfeits Therefore, Con has failed to suggest two more alternative scenarios of which it is moral for Con to win the debate. Continued from Con's list: 4) If Pro produces the debate and produces a valid argument, Pro forfeits the remaining 4 rounds and Con forfeits all 5 rounds, thus leaving Pro's argument unchallenged, Pro wins by default. 5) If Pro produces the debate and produces a valid argument, Pro forfeits the remaining 4 rounds and Con produces invalid arguments, thus leaving Pro's argument unchallenged, Pro wins by default. *http://www.debate.org... http://dictionary.reference.com... ;Reference for earlier post.