It is impossible to fully win this debate.

I attest to whom it might concern, that no matter what I say, I cannot fully win. A) To win I must win both the round and I must make my opponent concede to my opinion
so
B) if my opponent concedes and I win the debate then I lose the debate and if he argues and I lose, Then I win. But I haven't fully won.

To start off with, I'd like to make it clear that I don't agree with my opponent's opinion. This makes his first point irrelevant to any part of this debate, as I am not going to concede.

I negate, "It is impossible to fully win this debate."

Observation 1: The topic says nothing about an actor, so it applies to both me and my opponent as we are both participating in this debate.

Observation 2: Since the resolution states "impossible" and I am on the CON, all I need to do to win the debate is provide a way to fully win the debate. It doesn't matter at all whether or not we decide to take the possibility; only that there is a way.

Let's look to what the PRO says in R1.

"A) To win I must win both the round and I must make my opponent concede to my opinion
B) if my opponent concedes and I win the debate then I lose the debate and if he argues and I lose, Then I win. But I haven't fully won."

1) No warrants for why this should determine who wins; drop the points. I win.
2) This is basically a circular case, and the point being made is that no matter what happens, no one can really win a circular debate. I don't agree that is true.

My sole argument against the resolution is that fully win[ning] is completely dependent on a point of view. And to fully win this debate, it's fairly simple. All that we have to do is believe that we won. How we see the world is how our world appears to us. If we feel like seeing sadness in the world, then we see it. If we feel like seeing happiness, then that's what we see. Translating all that into debate.com and the debate we're having right now, we can fully win by just thinking that we won our debates. For me, that's trying hard and finding loopholes/flaws/etc with my opponents arguments and getting my brain to adapt to different positions on different debates, and in my mind, I've already won all my debates. In my mind, I've only lost 2 debates, and those are when I forfeited. But again, that's just my point of view. It's all based on the point of view we use as we encounter life's situations. I'm not the only one that thinks this, either:

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." - Eleanor Roosevelt

"They cannot take away our self respect if we do not give it to them" - Mohandas Ghandi

The winning of a debate has NEVER been dependent on what the vote count is; it has NEVER been dependent on who gets the most approval rating; it has NEVER been dependent on who is more "with the crowd".

We can all fully win our debates: If we just think about it that way.

I would like to thank Korezaan for taking my debate. But, if you truly believe that you've won, then you've won it all haven't you? If I believe I have a turkey sandwich, does that grant me a turkey sandwich. Rene Descartes once said: "I think therefore I am." or 'cogito ergo sum.'
Descartes original statement was, " I doubt therefore I am (dubito ergo sum)", which he changed in fear of the reaction of the Catholic church and not wanting to be another Bruno (i.e., a Roman Catholic religious who was burned alive at the stake for his philosophical writings and beliefs).
That being said, Descartes was stating that if he doubted, he existed but never once does he mention that if he doubts, other entities exist. The same can be applied here. Simply because you believe, doubt, entrust into a certain notion, rub yourself with magick cream and make a wish doesn't mean any of that exists.
My opponent attempts to refute using:
"My sole argument against the resolution is that fully win[ning] is completely dependent on a point of view. And to fully win this debate, it's fairly simple. All that we have to do is believe that we won. How we see the world is how our world appears to us."
That is only true in some cases but if you look back on the original resolution, you'll see that it does NOT say "It is impossible to win this debate"
No, quite the contrary. It says, "It is impossible to FULLY win this debate." Therefore, You have won in some sense and you have lost in others. And even going by your logic, I have still won and lost, ergo, because I will have believed I have won and you will believe you have won. Nevermind the votes, The wotes have, apparently, been given as only a sidebar. Please, make your rebuttal.

"But, if you truly believe that you've won, then you've won it all haven't you?"

This is exactly right. He never tells you why this point is wrong.

"If I believe I have a turkey sandwich, does that grant me a turkey sandwich."

Yeah, it does. If you believe there's a God, he exists. If you believe in multiple gods, they exist. What we believe defines our reality and our own existence.

"Descartes original statement was, " I doubt therefore I am (dubito ergo sum)", which he changed in fear of the reaction of the Catholic church and not wanting to be another Bruno (i.e., a Roman Catholic religious who was burned alive at the stake for his philosophical writings and beliefs)."

That does not in any way mean that I'm going to stop thinking that I'm winning this debate. Plus, it has no impact whatsoever: Thinking and doubting are pretty much the same thing in our debate; having either doesn't really break my position or uplift his. My case says that if you believe something, then it's reality - for you, at least, and that's all that matters. Changing "Think" to "Doubt" still falls under my case.

"That being said, Descartes was stating that if he doubted, he existed but never once does he mention that if he doubts, other entities exist. The same can be applied here. Simply because you believe, doubt, entrust into a certain notion, rub yourself with magick cream and make a wish doesn't mean any of that exists."

I have already responded to this; refer to the God/Gods response above.

""My sole argument against the resolution is that fully win[ning] is completely dependent on a point of view. And to fully win this debate, it's fairly simple. All that we have to do is believe that we won. How we see the world is how our world appears to us."
That is only true in some cases but if you look back on the original resolution, you'll see that it does NOT say "It is impossible to win this debate""

I'd just like everyone to know that I DID NOT SAY THE SECOND PART. My R1 was quote correctly up to "[...]how our world appears to us." The rest of it is misquoting, and none of the responses he makes to the second part counts, because I never said it.

"No, quite the contrary. It says, "It is impossible to FULLY win this debate." Therefore, You have won in some sense and you have lost in others. And even going by your logic, I have still won and lost, ergo, because I will have believed I have won and you will believe you have won. Nevermind the votes, The wotes have, apparently, been given as only a sidebar. Please, make your rebuttal."

Let's talk about existence; something that is either absolutely true or absolutely false. If you believe in God, then he exists. Who cares what I think? If I believe that I have won this debate, then I've fully won this debate. Who cares what you think? And whoever cares for either of the questions, why do they matter? Just as the votes are given as a sidebar, the comments are a sidebar as well.

Fully Win was never defined as "From everyone's perspective". It was not in his R1 or R2, and I said in my R1 on OB2 that "all I need to do to win the debate is provide a way to fully win the debate. It doesn't matter at all whether or not we decide to take the possibility; only that there is a way."

I have shown a way to fully win this debate for both of us: Believe that we have won. I have also proved how belief defines our reality. Those two premises being secured, the logical conclusion is that it is possible to fully win this debate - and if that's true, the PRO has already lost.

I have just come to the collaborative conclusion that I have executed this debate wrong. I am sorry, please vote pro

Extend all my arguments. Drop all of his.

As in his R3 he did not mention the criteria/burdens set up in R1, his concession in this debate doesn't mean he's won. And even if I give him that, he's never applied those two original arguments on himself: Nowhere in his two points does he point out specifically why him forfeiting wins him the round.

In my R1 I tell you that "[s]ince the resolution states "impossible" and I am on the CON, all I need to do to win the debate is provide a way to fully win the debate. It doesn't matter at all whether or not we decide to take the possibility; only that there is a way."

I have shown a way to negate the resolution and the PRO concedes.

Vote CON.