Resolved: In my opinion, green apples taste better than red apples.

------------------------------------------------ RE: Cross examination tactics ------------------------------------------------ 1) Alright, PRO's only response to my LD example is that since we aren't in an LD debate, it shouldn't apply. First, you should note that this concedes to the idea of their being no need to explain what particular methods one intends to use in analyzing C/X during any LD debate. Wanna know why no one is obligated to reveal how they intend to use C/X before C/X ? Because there's utterly no purpose. Cross Examination is simply the Socratic method which primary purpose is either for clarification or to reveal a contradiction. Given that this is the case, what difference does it make if we're on debate. org? PRO never bothers explaining this. Rather, he simply repeats himself in saying that he should not have to respond to my arguments without knowing how I intend to analyze him. Which as explained in R3, is simply absurd. 2) As for the so-called irrelevant questions, HOLD IT! This is not something PRO insisted in the previous round. You must note that his only original problem was that I could have used these questions to provide invalid conclusions (an argument which PRO completely drops in this round). 3) Next, EVEN IF YOU TAKE THOSE QUESTIONS WHICH HE CITES AS IRRELEVANT, it still doesn't change the fact that PRO has ignored questions which would EXPLICITLY help me in gathering evidence. For instance, why couldn't PRO answer me on these questions listed below? #1. Why is it your opinion that green apples taste better than red apples? What do they taste like? #2. In your lifetime, what would you say was the percentage of red apples you've eaten compared to the percentage of green apples that you've eaten? #7. Would you prefer that people in general prefer green apples over red apples? #11. If you were to eat nothing other than green apples for six months straight, do you believe you would lose interest in preferring green apples over red apples? These are questions and others straight up call the resolution into question. At the very LEAST, PRO could have labeled the mere ten questions he had a problem with as being irrelevant while answering the other 20 which he has no objections against at all. 4) To pacify PRO, I shall address these so-called problems (which he should have brought up previously) he has with MERELY 1/3 of my questions. #9. This question can used to determine the level of interest PRO has in green apples. Does he like them enough to impose his beliefs on others? #12. From this question, I could learn whether or not his interest in apples was simply a fad due to the overwhelming popularity of death note. If it was truly a fad, then it is likely that he doesn't really like apples, but rather Death Note instead. #16. Once again, a question used to determine how much he likes apples as well as to determine whether or not he thinks red and green apples equaled out (as I did say red AND green). The sex part was simply used to get him off his guard. Thus, making him more likely to answer honestly. #18. This determines his familiarity with the many ideas associated with apples and is yet another potential means to figure out just how much he is interested in apples. #24. Again, a "a how much you like apples" question as well as to determine whether or not he thinks red and green apples are equal. #25. Another knowledge based question as well as means of determining whether he likes apples or merely something associated with apples. #26. This would give me incite on the factors that drove him to like apples, particularly what drove him to think that red apples are not as good as green apples. #27. Trick question. This could be used in determining whether or not he was simply in a state of delusion or psychological illness. #28, This is question that would help in letting us conclude whether or not he liked all kinds of apples (as is the case with all questions that simply generalize apples) as well as to determine the degree to which he liked apples. The reason there are multiple questions like these is to make it easy to spot when/if PRO contradicts himself. #29. Again, a question with the same intent as above. #30. See the reasoning in #28. 5) (NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHEN VOTING): Although I could gather evidence from every single one of my questions, I'll admit that not all questions had the same amount of importance. This was done so that my opponent would not figure out where I was going with these questions. When using C/X, it's of the most importance that one doesn't allow the opposition to figure out where these questions are leading. If PRO knew where these questions were leading, he would be able to devise a means to answer each question without compromising himself; he'd know when to lie or provide vague answers. Clearly, my method worked as rather than answering the questions, PRO simply tries to avoid all of them altogether by demanding that I tell him where these questions are leading. 6) Finally, he says that he could have just as easily made the resolutions ". . RED APPLES TASTE BETTER THAN GREEN APPLES IF THAT WAS MY TRUE OPINION AS WHICH MY OPPONENT CLAIMS. " To this, I say not necessarily. For instance, PRO could have thought that he preferred green apples, but upon reading my questions and considering his own answers, he could have immediately realized that he didn't truly prefer green apples to red apples. I'm willing to say that this is more likely the case as PRO could have just as easily answered a question such as "Why is it your opinion that green apples taste better than red apples? What do they taste like? " to strengthen his so-called opinion. 7) (CLINCHER FOR EVIDENCE): When we take into account the above points, it becomes apparently clear that PRO had no valid reason to ignore all of my questions. Thus, with no valid reason, the three points I had made in "Evidence From NEG" during R3 stand uncontested. ------------------------------------------------------------ RE BURDEN OF PROOF: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Notice how PRO ignores my rebuttal concerning why the burden of proof belongs to the affirmative. If we are to take ignoring as conceding, then it would make no sense for him to be claiming that I cannot disprove the resolution when it is in fact his job to prove it (something of which HE DOESN'T EVEN ATTEMPT TO DO in ANY OF HIS ROUNDS). 2) Since when are we trying to prove/disprove an opinion? We're trying to prove/disprove whether or not someone POSSESSES an opinion. BIG DIFFERENCE. Last I checked, it works quite well in the courts. Ladies and gentleman, what this round really comes down to is whether or not we can tolerate the fact that my opponent has refused to actually take part in this debate, has refused to present any evidence for his side, and has allowed the only evidence asserted in this from (from yours truly) to go completely uncontested. Given these facts, it is rather clear that PRO loses the debate. BRIEF OVERVIEW: PRO has provided no evidence for his case, has dropped arguments concerning the burden of proof, and has provided me with evidence for my case through refusing to have C/X. The fact that he is admittedly an LD debater (he is familiar with C/X and KNOWS that no one is required to explain where they are going with their questions) and the fact that his reasons for refusing said C/X don't hold water would suggest he personally feels the resolution is false. Thus, I believe it is evident as to who has upheld their side of the resolution and who hasn't as well as who has won this debate. Thanks for the debate!