i know more
Debate Rounds (3)
Pro is arguing that s/he knows more. S/he has not specified what superior knowledge s/he has, and has not demonstrated how getting votes indicates superior knowledge. Pro must also demonstrate how mental votes are relevant.
To recap, the burden of proof is on Pro to demonstrate that s/he actually knows more to win this debate. To do this, Pro must specify what knowledge s/he has more of, and how s/he knows "more" about it.
Well, okay then....
Pro is asserting that s/he has unlimited power, but has not demonstrated that this is indeed true. Moreover, the resolution is "i know more," not "i have unlimited power," so this is a complete non-sequitur. The only thing Pro has demonstrated is a lack of knowledge about proper punctuation and spelling, so on that alone the resolution fails. Pro has still not specified what s/he knows more of and in relation to what, so without more information there is no reason to believe Pro knows more about anything than anyone.
The burden of proof remains unmet.
So, not only has Pro failed to defend the resolution, but his/her answers grew increasingly bizarre. I feel there's not much more to say here except that I hope Pro has enjoyed this exercise as much as I haven't. Cheers.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.