Con argues better

As the topic of this debate states, Pro must argue that Con argues better. Because I am Con, to win I must refute Pro's arguments while simultaneously presenting worse arguments.

I accept the resolution and feel that I am already on the back-foot. I will present continually worsening arguments that in the affirmative that Con's arguments are better than my own.

I have nothing to refute yet.

Also, I forfeit Round 3.

I presented no argument in round 1, which Con spotted, points to Con in error of noting my lack of argument.

Again cudos to Con for being courteous to inform me that Con will be forfeiting round 3. This is good form from Con and should be noted as a decent way to proceed.

However, I will not be a good sport about it and will post a '.' in the last round to have my post count, though it will be a negative to myself as it does not denote anything.

As Con, I argue that Pro has presented no arguments, and will not present future arguments. Pro agreed that he "presented no argument in round 1." Because no arguments have been presented by Pro, Con cannot argue "better" than Pro. The word "better" implies a relationship to something which is "worse." Because no argument was presented by Pro, no argument in this debate is "worse" than Con's, and therefore, Con's argument cannot be "better." As such, Con did not argue "better."

If Pro refutes any of the above claims in any way, Pro will have to do so by presenting an argument. Therefore, Pro will necessarily present a "better" argument because Con's argument will be refuted. Because the conditions for a "better" argument are that it is either more convincing than the other argument or that it refutes the other argument, Pro's argument, by refuting Con's argument, will be "better." Con will not have argued "better." Pro is stalemated. Con wins.

Thank you.

I take back my stance of only posting '.' - and will concede this round. Con argues better.