I (im_always_right) will lose this debate

if I win this debate, by getting more votes than my opponent I lose.

If I lose this debate by forfeiting (Which I wont do, forfeits make me mad and in the famous words of puck:(\_/) I don't want the bunny to die!)
............................(o.o)
............................(> <)

Or if I make a worse arguement, or make no sense at all, I will lose, therefore I will win, but by winning I will lose, according to the topic that means I win, which, by the same topic, means I lose.

Therefore I lose, prove me wrong.

I negate, that "I (im_always_right) will lose this debate".

My opponent takes the liberty of assuming that the matter of winning or losing will be determined by the amount of votes we each accumulate (this is seen in the first argument), and since I don't disagree, that will be the definition for the round – whoever gets more votes "wins", has "won", and is the "winner", and whoever gets less votes "loses", has "lost", and is the "loser". There are more derivations on both of those words, but I'm not going to include every single one of them. I'll take the liberty of assuming that everyone will know a derivation of "win" or "lose" when they see one.

With that definition down, let's go back and examine what the resolution really means.

"I (im_always_right) will lose this debate"
>>> This means that my opponent has made a premonition for the outcome of this debate, outcome being that she will be the one that ends up with the lesser amount of votes.

PRO's case says three things...

1) If she wins this debate by getting more votes, then she loses.
2) If she forfeits, she loses the debate.
3) [[[[[If her arguments suck, then she loses] < that means she wins ] < that means she loses] < that means she wins, because of the resolution] < that means she loses ]

...and everything in it is nontopical.

We are NOT looking at whether the prediction TURNS OUT to be right or wrong in this debate (as that would be out of our power, we can't see into the future), NOR are we looking at the final accumulation of the debate's votes (as that would be impossible as well, not only because we can't see into the future but also because the voting on this site doesn't end), but rather, examining the truth of what PRO's position, or rather, the resolution, is claiming.

This claim is a prediction, a prediction that PRO will lose.

However, PRO's R1 does not argue nor give us evidence on why such a prediction would be true. The only things we see are conditions for after the debate has ended, and those don't pertain to what the resolution is claiming at all. Until PRO has shown us some evidence of such a premonition, perhaps a screenshot from the future, we cannot believe her due to burden of proof. Think of the resolution as a claim, such as "Invisible pink unicorns exist". If the instigator has made such a claim and fails to show as such, then you automatically vote for the contender, as the contender doesn't need to prove anything at all. That said you default vote CON at this point since PRO has given us no evidence to believe her position (and consequently, the resolution) of this prediction of the future as true.

Oh I disagree. If I get more votes, at any one time, I lose for that time. However if I have less votes at any one time, I will win, because it is based on the title, which has everything to do with this debate. That clearly means that I will lose in one way or another, meaning, I will lose. Thus I cannotconceivably win.

Let's break PRO's R2 into parts.
My responses will pretty much be reiterations and longer versions of what I've already said in R1.

"If I get more votes, at any one time, I lose for that time."

> Based off of the definition of win/loss (and their derivations) for this debate, this statement is incorrect. If after this debate has finished my opponent accumulates more votes for any one time, then she will be "winning" (note that it is NOT "she will have won the debate", please see the * response). My opponent has not responded to this definition, so it flies clean.

"However if I have less votes at any one time, I will win, because it is based on the title, which has everything to do with this debate."

> Again, look to the definition of win/loss. If she has fewer votes during a period of time then she will be the "loser" of the debate until/if she gets more votes, at which point she will be the "winner" of the debate, until/if my vote count surpasses hers.

* However since the voting period for a debate on debate.com doesn't end once it begins, it is impossible to say that there is ever a person that has "won" or "lost" the debate. They may be "winning" or "losing", but there is no definite conclusion one can reach. The resolution claims that my opponent will lose this debate in the end (The resolution interpretation was not responded to and therefore is extended.). This is impossible – there is no end.

> PRO attempts to use the resolution to say that whenever they have less votes they have actually won and when they have more votes they have actually lost and try to fool us into thinking that this debate is a chicken/egg paradox, but all the resolution really does is attempt to predict the future. This was defined clearly in my R1: "This means that my opponent has made a premonition for the outcome of this debate, outcome being that she will be the one that ends up with the lesser amount of votes." Naturally, this means that she would have to prove to us that she ends up with the fewer amount of votes. She has not done so, and as we have seen, is an impossible task to complete.

"That clearly means that I will lose in one way or another, meaning, I will lose. Thus I cannotconceivably win."

>>> Thankfully, I am not one of those debaters that changes definitions every round. I have defined in my R1 how to tell which debater can be winning a debate: more votes. At this point, whether or not the prophecy turns out to be true does not matter. I have defined the resolution as well, so any attempts at trying to confuse everyone further – I'm sorry, any attempts to shift advocacy will fail epically.

__________________

As it is impossible to see into the future,
And it is also impossible to have "won" or "lost" a debate.com debate,
And since no evidence has been provided by PRO to believe the resolution's premonition and therefore does not meet burden of proof,
Im_always_right has not proven the resolution's prophecy and therefore loses the debate.

This round was forfeited, because the debater did not win, which means she was right the whole time.

Nope, she was wrong the whole time since burden of proof was never fulfilled.

Extend everything from R2.

"[...]As it is impossible to see into the future,
And it is also impossible to have "won" or "lost" a debate.com debate,
And since no evidence has been provided by PRO to believe the resolution's premonition and therefore does not meet burden of proof,
Im_always_right has not proven the resolution's prophecy and therefore loses the debate."

You vote CON.