The User Known As "Bluesteel" is a girl
This is clearly the most pressing issue on the site as of this moment, so a debate about it is clearly in order.
Resolved: The DDO user known as Bluesteel is a girl
Definitions since this is going to become necessary:
DDO - Debate.org, the website we're using right now
Bluesteel - http://www.debate.org...
girl - of female gender or identifying with the female gender
The first round will be for acceptance. No new arguments will be presented in the final round. This is an entirely serious debate here people, as this is a topic of dire consequences and deserves to be treated with solemn respect.
Thank you for instigating this debate. I understand that this issue is extremely controversial, and that it is important to maintain a serious attitude while debating this impactful issue.
First, presume aff because:
This makes the debate super simple because if I'm winning this part of the debate, all I need to prove that the user known as bluesteel is a girl is to reference her profile to show where she identifies as a female. Since her profile clearly marks her as having selected the female gender, the resolution is affirmed.
Contention Two: Inter-user relations
I'll outline this argument in the form of a syllogism. I do this because it makes the argument a lot clearer and simplistic. To warrant the conclusion of a syllogism, I must simply prove all of the premises I use to arrive at that conclusion. If all the premises are true, then the conclusion must logically be true.
P1. The user known as Mikal is a guy.
P2. The user known as Mikal is heterosexual
P3. The users Mikal and bluesteel were in a romantic/sexual relationship.
C. By definition of heterosexuality, bluesteel must be a girl.
Now to justify the premises:
Premise 1: This one is simple enough. Not only does Mikal's profile indicate that he is a guy (http://www.debate.org...) but he has photos of himself posted publicly on his profile (http://www.debate.org...) that verify his identity as a guy.
Premise 2: Mikal's profile indicates that he's interested in women, meaning that he's heterosexual. In addition, Mikal has publicly stated that he is of heterosexual identity (can be viewed in the comments on my profile http://www.debate.org...), meaning that this premise is by default true.
Premise 3: Not only have there been threads saying that Mikal and bluesteel were in a romantic/sexual relationship (http://www.debate.org...), but it's been rumored that there are also secret sources (partially divulged by bhu2001) confirming that they were, in fact, in a relationship. After a little digging, I discovered the identity of the source and asked for confirmation. To protect the identity of the anonymous source, I edited the picture to black out usernames (http://i1179.photobucket.com...). This confirms that bluesteel and Mikal were in a heterosexual relationship.
Conclusion: Since heterosexual by definition means people of opposite gender, and Mikal is a guy, bluesteel by default must be a girl. The resolution becomes affirmed.
Pro begins his case by arguing that in the case of a tie, the voters should give him the win. He justifies this by stating that:
"a) I've been a member of the site for far longer than my opponent has, and have known bluesteel for far longer than he has, so am a far better authority on whether or not bluesteel is a guy or girl than my opponent. If the debate is tied at the end you vote aff since I'm more likely to be right from personal experience and knowledge"
In the event of a tie, the win should actually go to Con because Pro has the burden of proof. If Pro does not prove beyond any doubt that bluesteel is a girl, then Con wins the debate. Pro can use his experience as an argument during the debate, but his word simply isn't enough to prove his case. If the above is considered and the voter still feels that it is a tie, they should mark it as so.
"b) I've been in G+ hangout sessions with bluesteel and have seen her with her webcam on, therefore have eyewitness testimony that my opponent lacks. If the debate is tied you prefer my eyewitness testimony over my opponent's lackthereof"
Again, Pro doesn't provide any evidence for this, meaning it *has not* been confirmed that pro has even seen bluesteel with his own eyes, nor has it been confirmed that if he has, he is telling the truth when he says that bluesteel is a girl.
"userhood is distinct from personhood in that it's an entirely digitally constructed identity"
According to Merriam Webster dictionary, a user is defined as: "A person or thing that uses something".  This essentially means that "userhood", by definition, is the exact same thing as personhood, completely invalidating my opponent's claim.
"The anonymity of the internet has empowered internet users to construct identities that can be entirely fictional from their real life identities"
Although it is possible to pretend to have a personality on the internet that different from their own, this does not mean that that the actual personality (Or in this case, gender) of the person has changed. In order to win the debate, Pro must show that the person who uses the account known as bluesteel is a girl, not that the person pretends to be one.
"multiple users can have access to a single account"
Although this is technically possible, there has been no evidence given to indicate that particular account is used by multiple people.
"A user account cannot be both a guy and a girl at the same time, as that runs contrary to understandings of biological gender, without which identification of gender becomes impossible objectively."
If multiple people were using the account, we would refer to them as "users". In that case, saying that a group of people consists of people with different genders makes perfect sense. It has already been established before that a "user" is a person who uses the account.
"Second, one person can hold multiple different accounts simultaneously"
"the splitting of a person to share multiple different accounts is nonsense, as each account may have a distinct persona, speech, beliefs, mannerisms, etc, that make that distinct user a distinct individual"
Again, the traits of a person using a website does not change if they pretend to be someone else on a different account(s). The traits and gender of the person using the accounts remains the same regardless of what they may pretend to be.
Althoug I agree with the first two premises of pro's second argument, I disagree with the third.
"Premise 3: Not only have there been threads saying that Mikal and bluesteel were in a romantic/sexual relationship (http://www.debate.org......), but it's been rumored that there are also secret sources (partially divulged by bhu2001) confirming that they were, in fact, in a relationship. After a little digging, I discovered the identity of the source and asked for confirmation. To protect the identity of the anonymous source, I edited the picture to black out usernames (http://i1179.photobucket.com......). This confirms that bluesteel and Mikal were in a heterosexual relationship."
Someone's word simply does not prove this. They could be joking or lying, there obviously needs to be more serious evidence to prove this.
Thank you for reading! Good luck pro and have a nice day.
Extend my presumption argument that if the debate is tied and you're not sure of who won the debate, presume that I'm right because a) I've been around longer and have known bluesteel longer, therefore am a better authority on bluesteel than my opponent, and b) I've been in G+ hangout sessions with bluesteel when she had her camera off, therefore I possess eyewitness testimony that my opponent lacks.
His only response to these points is that I have burden of proof so I still have to prove that bluesteel's a girl, but that's the entire point of my two contentions. This isn't responsive to my presumption argument. I can just say that if you're not sure if I've fulfilled my burden of proof or not, then presume I have for the same two reasons my opponent dropped.
Extend my contention one. User hood in the sense of an online username is distinct from personhood in that a user is an entirely digitally constructed entity that may or may not correlate to the person that enters the login credentials for that user. Look to the two reasons I give you as for why you should separate personhood from userhood in that a) the potential for multiple users having access to a single account doesn't mean that the account is both male and female, meaning the only stable identity is the user identity rather than the person identity, and b) the potential for one person to have different accounts with different information doesn't split apart the person's identity, since the splitting of person ontologically doesn't make sense, meaning that the only logical information to go off of is the stated user identity.
He makes a few responses to this idea, so I'll respond to each one specifically.
He responds: "According to Merriam Webster..."
His definition is flawed here because it's not specific to an internet user, rather it talks about a generic "user", which could be referencing drug users to Xbox users. This debate is using the subject of user being the internet identity, which his definition doesn't address.
Moreover, even if his definition is solid, he's not providing you with any kind of warrant as for why this invalidates my argument, rather just throws the definition in your face and says "I win, moving on."
He responds: "Although it's possible to pretend ... pro must show that the person ..."
This doesn't actually respond to the argument I'm making. Go back and read my argument. I'm arguing that because there's these discrepencies that we can consider userhood different from personhood. And because the resolution is specific to the "user" known as bluesteel rather than the "person" known as bluesteel, I don't actually need to prove that the person who uses the account known as "bluesteel" is a girl, all I need to do is prove that the user known as "bluesteel" is a girl, which are two entirely different things according to my argument.
He responds: "Although this is technically possible..." and "Not on Debate.org. The terms..."
I'm not arguing that this is the case here. My argument is saying that because this is a thing that could possibly happen, that we have to consider userhood separate from personhood. Whether it's the case here is irrelevant to my argument.
And being specific to the multiple users per person, it's definitely happened in the past regardless of the legal terms so just saying that it's technically not allowed doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. But even if it didn't, my argument isn't specific to Debate.org, rather the internet in general since my argument applies to generic userhood rather than Debate.org userhood.
He responds: "If multiple people were using the account ..." and "Again, the traits of a person using a website ..."
This is making the assumption that personhood = userhood, which not only a) is the entire thing that my argument is intending to separate, but b) is a concept I've already refuted since he's just relying on his faulty definition to warrant it.
With all of his responses finished, my first contention stands solid. If I'm winning on my first contention, you're affirming because if all I have to do is show that the user identifies as female, since bluesteel's profile clearly shows female, I win the debate.
Then, extend my second contention. I give a syllogism showing that because bluesteel was in a romantic/sexual relationship with a proven heterosexual male on the site in Mikal, that by the definition of heterosexual, bluesteel has to be female.
The thing that you have to be aware of is by the nature of a syllogism, if all of the premises are true and stand, then the conclusion must necessarily be true because that's how deductive logic works. He doesn't contest any of the premises, and even concedes that they're true, which means that the conclusion must necessarily be true. This means that his responses are just default wrong via deductive logic.
But even if his responses aren't wrong, let's talk about them for a second.
His response to the conclusion is that my proof is insufficient because people could be joking or lying, and I need more serious evidence. Since this is partially his responses to other points, I'm going to address it as an overall concept.
Prefer the evidence I provide over my opponent's cries for more evidence because nothing I provide will ever be sufficient. Any kind of evidence I provide he'll always being able to retroactively find some way to say it's fallible and ask for better evidence. I got a written statement from bluesteel saying that she's a girl? Not good enough, she could be joking or lying, do better. Verbal recording of her admitting that she's a girl? Not good enough, could be voice altering or someone else talking and it not being bluesteel, do better. Video recording of her annoucing her identity and that she's a girl? Not good enough, got someone else to pose as bluesteel, do better. He'll always be able to retroactively make some kind of excuse for why all the evidence I pull up isn't sufficient. If this is how you view my arguments, it makes the resolution indeterminable because we aren't sure WHAT gender bluesteel is. If the resolution becomes indeterminable, you still affirm anyway because a) I'm winning the presumption debate, so you just presume I'm more likely to be right and affirm, and b) I'm contesting the burden of proof being on me because we already have a statement as for bluesteel's gender on her profile. This means that under the status quo bluesteel's a girl. If Con wants to contest the status quo, he adopts the burden of proof to show that bluesteel's profile is a lie. Without sufficient proof there's no reason to diverge from the status quo.
So let's summarize the debate so far.
1. Burden of proof lies on Con because under the status quo, we see that bluesteel is a girl via her profile. Outside of proof from Con that this isn't the case, we default to bluesteel's profile information and affirm the resolution. This is especially problematic because con presents no negating arguments of his own, rather spends all of his time refuting my arguments. This means that it's impossible for him to fulfill his burden of proof.
2. Even if the BoP is on me instead of con, you still presume I'm winning the debate because I'm a much better authority on who bluesteel is than my opponent, thus am more likely correct that she's a girl. His responses don't actually address the argument I make here so I'm winning the presumption debate. If the debate is at all close in any way, you affirm.
3. I'm winning on both of my contentions, both of which independently show how bluesteel has to be a girl. All I need to do is win one of those arguments to show that bluesteel is a girl since both of them argue independently for why bluesteel is a girl. He's not doing anywhere near enough work to show why my arguments are flawed, and I've responded to every single response he made against my arguments. I'm winning the contention level debate hands down. Easy affirmative vote.
"I can just say that if you're not sure if I've fulfilled my burden of proof or not, then presume I have for the same two reasons my opponent dropped"
The reasons were not dropped. In addition to writing that the BOP must be met, I added that your word isn't enough to prove the resolution. I can easily write the same thing, but that does not mean that it is by any means true or a good reason to believe that bluesteel is a girl. I stated that Pro must provide actual evidence of him seeing bluesteel in person to even have this argument in the first place, and even if Pro has seen bluesteel then we have to ask ourselves if Pro is even telling the truth. Even with that considered, we must ask if bluesteel had been tricking Pro or if Pro had been mistaken in thinking that bluesteel is a girl. Although I brought all of these points up in my initial response to Pro, he doesn't address them and states that I dropped it. Clearly, I have not.
"A user is an entirely digitally constructed entity that may or may not correlate to the person that enters the login credentials for that user"
Again, by definition a user is a person (Or thing, but I'm sure we can agree that bluesteel isn't a machine) that uses something. I agree that the user's profile may or may not by similar to that user's opinions/personality. In fact, I contend that that essentially supports my argument, as it outlines how it is very possible (And knowing the internet, likely) that one would use the anomnity that comes with the internet to their advantage and pretend to be someone else.
"His definition is flawed here because it's not specific to an internet user, rather it talks about a generic "user", which could be referencing drug users to Xbox users"
The term "user" is very general. However, saying that because a word that applies to many things it is flawed is irrational, as it has no bearing on the actual validity of the definition.
"This debate is using the subject of user being the internet identity, which his definition doesn't address"
The definition includes this. As mentioned last round, a user is the one who uses the account in this context. The fact that it doesn't agree with what he's arguing is not enough to dismiss the definition.
"Moreover, even if his definition is solid, he's not providing you with any kind of warrant as for why this invalidates my argument, rather just throws the definition in your face and says "I win, moving on.""
This is simply not true. I showed how with the definition of a user being "A person who uses something", there is no reason to think that Pro's attempts to redefine it are valid. He essentially asserts that a user is a digitally constructed identity, but doesn't give us a reason to think that. Again, a user can pretend to have a different identity but that does not make it their true identity. Someone's actual personal characteristics can be completely different from their profile.
"And because the resolution is specific to the "user" known as bluesteel rather than the "person" known as bluesteel"
I've already shown how "user" and "person" are the exact same thing.
"Idon't actually need to prove that the person who uses the account known as "bluesteel" is a girl, all I need to do is prove that the user known as "bluesteel" is a girl, which are two entirely different things according to my argument"
The problem with his argument is that he essentially asserts that his definition is correct, and that userhood is distinct from personhood, without giving much reason to convince people to adopt that. The little reason given has been refuted,
"I'm not arguing that this is the case here. My argument is saying that because this is a thing that could possibly happen, that we have to consider userhood separate from personhood. Whether it's the case here is irrelevant to my argument"
I had mentioned in my rebuttal that the traits of a person still does not change, even when they may be using multiple accounts. Although one can argue that the person using the account pretends to be a girl, that it not enough evidence to conclude that they are in fact a girl. The fact about how it probably wouldn't occur/the user would get caught was more of a side note. However, Pro only addresses the fact that it probably didn't happen rather than addressing the actual rebuttal, essentially leaving the rebuttal untouched.
"This is making the assumption that personhood = userhood, which not only a) is the entire thing that my argument is intending to separate"
The argument has already been refuted, but there has not really been a response to the rebuttal. Until Pro provides one the audience should not consider this statement as a valid refutation to my argument.
"b) is a concept I've already refuted since he's just relying on his faulty definition to warrant it"
I've shown above how the definition is not by any means faulty. In addition, I've shown how your refutations are not logically valid.
"The thing that you have to be aware of is by the nature of a syllogism, if all of the premises are true and stand, then the conclusion must necessarily be true because that's how deductive logic works. He doesn't contest any of the premises, and even concedes that they're true, which means that the conclusion must necessarily be true. This means that his responses are just default wrong via deductive logic"
This is false. I stated that we had no reason to think that one of the premises were true, and thus should probably not believe it until Pro comes up with sufficient evidence. Clearly, this is different than conceding the point.
"nothing I provide will ever be sufficient [enough to prove that bluesteel is a girl]"
The BOP of the debate in this case is on Pro to prove that "the user known as bluesteel is a girl". This is an affirmative statement and it is up to him to back up this claim. He cannot show that bluesteel may be a girl, that it is probable that bluesteel is a girl, or that there is a possibility that bluesteel is a girl; He must actually show that bluesteel is a girl. This is his BOP that he essentially agreed to fulfill when he made this debate, and he has just admitted that he is not able to provide any sufficient evidence. Because of this, he essentially conceded the debate, as he outright admitted that he cannot meet his BOP, and thus is unable to fulfill the conditions he must meet to win the debate. With his burden of proof admittedly unsatisfied, Pro cannot win this debate.
"Even if the BoP is on me instead of con, you still presume I'm winning the debate because I'm a much better authority on who bluesteel is than my opponent, thus am more likely correct that she's a girl. His responses don't actually address the argument I make here so I'm winning the presumption debate. If the debate is at all close in any way, you affirm"
This has been shown to be false multiple times. There are countless ways people can experience something that is not actually what they think it is. It may be real to them, but it does not necessarily objectively exist. This can occur as a result of a number of things, such as drugs/alcohol, fatigue or lack of sleep, or even a trick from the person behind the camera. Even more ways exist, but the point is that Pro has not proven this point at all yet. Even if the logic behind it was valid, there's no reason to believe him at all.
Pro's arguments are clearly not enough to proof the large claim that bluesteel is a girl. His responses to my rebuttals either do not address the points being made or are essentially bare assertions. In addition, he admittedly cannot fully fulfill his burden of proof, and can only offer small pieces of evidence that do not prove in anyway that bluesteel is a girl.
Please consider these points when voting, and thank you for reading what I had to say about this issue.
Good luck Pro, have a nice day! Also, happy Easter! (Even if you don't celebrate Easter, I hope you have a nice day anyway!)
Throughout the entirety of the debate, the only kind of substantive response my opponent has given is that I'm not providing "enough proof" and has entirely mishandled/dropped the vast majority of my arguments. I'm here to show you that you absolutely cannot do that and still have any hope of winning the round.
First, extend presumption. In the event of a tie or you're not sure of who's doing a better job fulfilling their burdens in the debate, you err on the side of aff because a) I've been around longer and have known bluesteel longer and b) have seen bluesteel on G+ hangouts with her camera off, therefore am a better authority and have a better idea on what gender bluesteel is than my opponent, making my opinion more likely to be valid.
His ONLY responses have been that I have the BOP and that my word isn't sufficient, but this really isn't responsive to what a presumption argument even is. As I've clarified in previous rounds, the entire point of a presumption argument is if neither of us are doing a good job of fulfilling our resolutional burdens and you as the voter are unsure of who actually won the debate. In the event no one's argument is compelling, neither aff nor neg, then all you have to go on in terms of voting is my word over his, in which case you affirm 100%. None of the reasonings why you're preferring my word over his were ever attacked at any point in this debate, so this is clear offense for aff.
As for the responses, those are his only two responses to the general affirmative, so I'll get to those in a minute.
Extend that the BoP is on Neg in this debate. The current status quo and belief on DDO is that bluesteel is a girl, as evidenced by the fact that her profile reads as female and that popular belief among recent members is that she's a girl, not to mention the numerous forum posts and PMs that indicate that she's of female gender. A deviation from the status quo requires a justification for why we ought to deviate, otherwise there's no reason to change our beliefs. This is especially damning because a) my opponent hasn't made any kind of constructive argument throughout the entirety of the debate, and b) all of his responses to my case are defensive, meaning that they aren't reasons why the negative is right, rather reasons why I'm wrong. All of his time has been devoted to trying to refute my arguments, meaning he hasn't made any arguments of his own that generate negative offense. This has two implications on the debate and how you vote today: a) It's literally impossible for him to fulfill his burden because he has no offense throughout the entire debate, therefore impossible for him to win the debate, and b) even if you buy his arguments that I'm not giving you enough proof, you still prefer my kind-of-sort-of fulfilled burden over his burden that was never even attempted to be fulfilled.
Also, reject the concept that burden of proof lies on the aff because they're making a positive claim because both sides make positive claims due to the inherent dichotomy of the resolution. Aff makes the claim that bluesteel is a girl, while Neg makes the claim that bluesteel is a guy. Both of these claims are positive claims, therefore, by my opponent's argument, require proof. I've provided you with arguments that serve as proof. My opponent hasn't done anything. You can affirm right here without reading anything else.
Just for the sake of clarity and not giving me a headache going through neg's redundant responses, I'm kicking contention one. It's not necessary for me to win the debate, and you're easily affirming off of contention two anyway.
Speaking of which, extend contention two. Using the proven malehood of the user known as Mikal and the definition of heterosexual meaning of different genders, I syllogistically prove that bluesteel must absolutely, 100% be a girl by using deductive logic. Deductive logic means that I take logical steps and thoughts in order to reach a conclusion. If the steps are valid, then by deductive logic, the conclusion must be valid, regardless of how preposterous the conclusion.
The problem with my opponent's responses here is that he concedes 90% of the premises right off the bat, and his only response to the third premise just isn't enough nor does it actually refute the argument overall. Not only do I have an independent third party confirming that bluesteel and Mikal were in a relationship of heterosexual origins, but by Mikal's own admission he was in a relationship with bluesteel that was 100% heterosexual. That proves the third premise. His refusal of it doing this is just him sticking his head in the sand. That's like if I were to say that I was a guy that I'm wrong because I could be lying and I need to better warrant my manhood.
Furthermore, extend my turn that by my opponent's logic, we can't ever reach any kind of conclusion because we can never have "sufficient" evidence to prove anything. Anyone's word could always be in jest or could be a lie, any picture could be doctored or stolen from somewhere else, any video evidence could be staged and inaccurate. It becomes impossible to reach any kind of conclusion, both in favor of aff and of neg. It standstills the entirety of the debate because we can't prove anything. And even in this situation, you still affirm because a) I'm winning the presumption debate, meaning that if neither of our arguments are doing enough then you prefer my authority over my opponent's lack of authority, and b) I'm doing a better job at attempting to fulfill my burden, compared to my opponent's complete and utter neglect of his burden, meaning that I've done the better job debating. A voter's responsibilities as a voter is to judge who did a better job debating, not on which side is correct, as that invites outside intervention on the judge's part. I'm doing a better job attempting to fulfill my burden than my opponent, which means I'm doing the better job debating, which means you affirm there.
So at the end of the day, this debate is a super simple affirmative vote:
1) Only one premise in my second contention was attacked, with all the rest being conceded. The attack on my third premise was weak, at best, and thuroughly refuted. My second contention is definitive proof that bluesteel is, in fact, a girl, meaning you affirm right there.
2) My opponent provides no constructive arguments of his own, meaning he physically cannot fulfill his burden that the resolution imposes on him. That means it's impossible for him to win the debate, which means you affirm.
3) Even if all else fails and you're still unsure of where to vote, you affirm because a) I'm winning the presumption debate, meaning that you're erring aff anyway, and b) I'm doing a better job of attempting to fulfill my burden compared to my opponent, meaning that I'm doing the better job debating.
My opponent's logic that you should vote for him if you aren't sure who won is still logically invalid. Again, *my opponent provides literally no reasoning to think that he's even been in a hangout with bluesteel, let alone has seen even bluesteel's face*. His word simply isn't enough to to justify this claim, I can claim the exact same thing and my word holds the exact same weight as his. It's literally a bare assertion, do not follow this point. If you think the debate is a tie, leave it as so.
"Just for the sake of clarity and not giving me a headache going through neg's redundant responses, I'm kicking contention one. It's not necessary for me to win the debate, and you're easily affirming off of contention two anyway"
I'm disappointed in my opponent's poor conduct in this debate. Saying that my arguments are so terrible they give him head aches is a personal insult that is obviously not necessary.
"That proves the third premise"
Again, my opponent has failed to show that his source is trustworthy or reliable. Mikal is human, and thus is able to lie about anything. There needs to be evidence that Mikal is telling the truth to justify this, like a picture of the two together. I can claim that I dated a super model, but a human's word is not enough to prove the claim. Until his third premise is proven, do not accept this point.
I do not need to provide proof that bluesteel is a male. I'm merely disproving my opponent's claim that bluesteel is a girl. There is not one point in the debate where I claimed that bluesteel is a guy. Pro always has the burden to proof his claim in a debate, unless specified otherwise in the opening round that included the rules.
In addition, Pro claims that the burden of proof cannot be fulfilled, therefore he does not have to meet it. However, the BOP still rests on his shoulders, regardless of how tough it is to fulfill. Pro only gives arguments as to why it would be hard for him to find evidence to support his claims rather than making arguments as to why it's invalid to demand proof from him. Again, as pro, my opponent must prove beyond any doubt that bluesteel is a girl. Showing that bluesteel is possibly, probably, or could be a girl is not enough to prove the resolution that bluesteel *is* a girl.
I'll use math to fortify my explanation on this point:
Zaradi is making the claim, which means to fulfill the BoP he has to provide X.
Rather than providing actual evidence or compelling arguments, my opponent provided Y.
Y= A bare assertion.
X= Evidence that my opponent is correct/him meeting the BOP.
Y < X.
Y is not enough to justify X. My opponent has made a claim, and he has the burden of proof unless specified otherwise in the first round of the debate (The round where both sides provide necessary definitions and specify the rules of the debate). Seeing as he has failed to do so, I am not required to prove that bluesteel is a boy in order to win this debate; rather, I must negate my opponent's claims that bluesteel is a girl. Again, I *never* claimed that bluesteel is a man, I'm merely arguing against my opponent's assertions claiming that bluesteel is a girl. For this reason it is impossible for my opponent to win, and therefore it is unnecessary for me to provide any arguments against him.
I have negated my opponent's claims and shown how he must fulfill the burden of proof in order to win the debate (Which he never met, as shown above). My opponent's claims that I must prove that bluesteel is a man is faulty as well, as I never claimed that bluesteel is a man, rather I was negating the claim that bluesteel is a girl. The only "burden of proof" I would technically have is to negate my opponent's claims, which I have done. Thus, my opponent has failed to meet his BOP, has had poor conduct, and has had his argument's refuted.
I'd like to thank Zaradi for giving me my first completed "serious debate" on this website. In addition, I thank anyone who took time out of their daily lives to read this debate and consider the points my opponent and I made, I appreciate it.
Again, thank you for the debate Pro, and have a nice day!
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|