My opponent cannot forfeit every round of this debate and still win.

Although, I have seen some people forfeit every round of a debate and still manage to succeed in winning these cases are rare and far between. Usually the debate topic is really bad, the person is despised, or the arguments in favor are actually weak enough that no reply is nearly a tie.

None of those apply.
- I'm not hated.
- The topic isn't so offensive as to illicit anti-votes.
- My arguments are not tissue thin and worthless.

There are two likely outcomes:
-- My opponent will reply thus proving that he or she cannot forfeit every round or that he or she believes forfeiting would make it non-feasible to win, thereby proving my point.
-- My opponent will fail to reply and thus have neither the best arguments, best spelling, best conduct or reliable sources. Even if one were inclined to vote for my opponent out of some sense of entitlement for accepting this debate and forfeiting they would still be buried by some individuals who voted on the merits of the debate resulting in a loss.

In short, my opponent cannot forfeit every round of this debate and still win.

(Time to argue is set for 24 hours for speed considerations)

I forfeit this round.

My opponent offers the counter argument "I forfeit this round". That argument is extremely weak but is not a proper forfeit as everybody should properly understand. My opponent did this because he now understands that it is not possible for him to forfeit every round and win. So he didn't forfeit.

He did this because he realized he couldn't properly forfeit the argument and still win because there seems to be a new Debate.com "feature" which cancels the debate if you don't actually post at the very least the first round of debate. In the comments section (where he's inclined to post his arguments) I noted this feature and he agreed that he couldn't actually forfeit every round and still win and he agreed.

I noted:
"Actually, judging from another debate if you miss the first round it'll cancel the debate. I had somebody accept and expire on another debate it canceled it. If that holds true then I am absolutely correct."

He replied:
"Damn, you're right. That sucks. However, I could do something else."

-- By noting that "you're right" he's conceding the argument. He can't forfeit them all and still win due to technical limitations of the software.

This "feature" makes it impossible that my opponent can forfeit every round of this debate and still win. If he actually forfeited the round the debate would have auto-canceled and not resulted in a win.

-----------

Similarly I reiterate my previous stance. I won't lose because people like me, some don't some do, but I'm not despised which is about what is required lose a three round forfeit. Next, I propose there's some biases which makes a person more likely to vote for one individual over another. For example, in a debates defending gay marriage against some people I managed to win the debate by over 100 points (most debates don't even have 100 points given). Typically people on this site do tend to vote in favor of liberal, atheistic, pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-tolerance arguments if they have made the minimal threshold of logical sense. My arguments far exceed this minimal threshold.

This said, I'm extremely open minded and a very reasonable and personable person. My opponent has an avatar of a John McCain head photoshopped onto a baby. He supports John McCain in the upcoming election and believes that global warming is a hoax, and supports the war in Iraq. -- I'm not arguing that one should take biased positions and vote via ad hominems. Rather, people should vote for the best argument. I'm pointing out that my opponent will have biased votes against him and therefore will not win the debate. So, the fact that *OTHER* people would vote in my favor on the basis of such things means that I'm right on sheer argument and you should vote in my favor.

The fact that ad hominems would successfully win me the debate without merits, suffices to suggest that I should win the argument on it's merits. Further, since I should win with and without merits suggests I should win period and thus the votes should be cast in my favor.

Look in the comment section for my arguments. I forfeit this round.

Posting your debate somewhere else doesn't exempt you from actually having the debate. I could post a series of youtube clips and say that I forfeit the round.

You clearly don't. You're cheating. You're not really forfeiting any of the rounds. This proves one thing, you can't win by forfeiting all the rounds.

-- I can lift 100 pounds without touching the weight bar?
Really?
-- Yeah, just let me put on my gloves.

Faker. You should have just let the debates properly expire and been legit about it.

"Posting your debate somewhere else doesn't exempt you from actually having the debate. I could post a series of youtube clips and say that I forfeit the round.

You clearly don't. You're cheating. You're not really forfeiting any of the rounds. This proves one thing, you can't win by forfeiting all the rounds.

-- I can lift 100 pounds without touching the weight bar?
Really?
-- Yeah, just let me put on my gloves.

Faker. You should have just let the debates properly expire and been legit about it."

You simply said forfeit. I am arguing semantics. I win this debate, but I forfeit this round. That's legit.

Even if you weren't arguing previously you certainly are now. You haven't forfeited a round yet, not really. Poor show. You know you can't win if you did it so you're fighting tooth and nail when really you're suppose to let the voters whims let you rise or fall, but I think you know which way those whims would go had you actually stayed out of it.

Clearly you know that you can't actually forfeit every round and win. That's why you can't resist defending yourself because you think arguing is going to help. By the nature of the debate, defending yourself shows your weakness. Poor form. Clearly you see your only path to victory as defense and therefore you've lost.

I FORFEIT THIS ROUND, however I will still post some arguments.

So far my opponent has made the following claims:
1. He is not hated.
2. The topic isn't offensive.
3. His arguments are valid.
4. If I reply, I would prove his point.
5. If I don't reply I can't win.
6. If I miss the first round, the debate is canceled.
7. Ad hominems can win him this debate.
8. If I post elsewhere, I am not forfeiting the round.
9. I'm cheating.
10. I posted an argument.

Okay so I'll turn, refute, or cause the points to be dropped, in order.
1. Drop. This point is not relevant to this debate. I can still make better arguments than him, and as long as I forfeit, I can win this debate.

2. Drop. This point is not relevant to this debate. I can still make better arguments than him, and as long as I forfeit, I can win this debate.

3. Drop. People who are well respected, and noncontroversial can often make good arguments and still lose.

4. Refute. I simply must prove that I can win. I don't have to demonstrate it. That's a dare, not a debate. I must post if we are to have a debate. I can still win if I don't, crazier things have happened.

5. Refute. There have been debates where well respected debaters such as PoeJoe have lost a debate in which his or her opponent has forfeited all their rounds. Also, I have been accused of being a member of a voting bloc. Now while I still deny this, it is a possibility, and I could use the voting bloc to vote me to victory. I also could theoretically use multiple cell phones in order to vote for myself.

6. Drop. Missing a round isn't forfeiting it. Forfeiting a round would mean not posting an argument. "I forfeit this round" is not an argument. It is possible.

7. Drop. That is a conditional affirmation. Just because you can win does not mean that I can't. I can win this debate, you can win this debate.

8. Drop. Although this is true, I don't need to forfeit to win. I need to prove I can win even if I forfeit. Like I said, I don't have to demonstrate the point, that is a dare, I have to prove it, that is a debate.

9. Refute/Drop. I am not cheating. The rules never said I couldn't do this. Also, people break listed rules in a debate all the time. They still win.

10. Drop. So? I can do that. I have to prove a point, not demonstrate it.

I pointed out that people have lost debates after forfeiting before, usually because their position was really bad or the person was disliked. Neither of those apply in this case.

My opponent has conceded. Let us assume my opponent wants to win this debate. If he does what he feels will make it most likely that he wins the debate and he's now resolved to arguing the debate rather than forfeiting the rounds he MUST believe that argument is a better path to victory. However, since the argument at hand is that my opponent can't forfeit every round and win it becomes quite obvious that my opponent knows the topic is accurate.

----

Further let me point out again the silver bullet. The new Debate.com will cancel a debate if argument 1 isn't posted by both parties. By virtue of this fact, if the first round is forfeited then my opponent would not win, in fact, he cannot win. Considering this, due to software limitations, the topic is completely accurate regardless of what my opponent says or does.

"I pointed out that people have lost debates after forfeiting before, usually because their position was really bad or the person was disliked. Neither of those apply in this case."

Actually, they do. Your position cannot be defended. I CAN win. It may be unlikely, but it is possible.

"My opponent has conceded. Let us assume my opponent wants to win this debate. If he does what he feels will make it most likely that he wins the debate and he's now resolved to arguing the debate rather than forfeiting the rounds he MUST believe that argument is a better path to victory. However, since the argument at hand is that my opponent can't forfeit every round and win it becomes quite obvious that my opponent knows the topic is accurate."

No, I need to argue to prove my point. If I just forfeit, I would be taking a dare. This isn't dare.com, it's debate.com. I'm arguing that I could win. I must argue for this to be an actual debate. I can win, it is just unlikely.

"Further let me point out again the silver bullet. The new Debate.com will cancel a debate if argument 1 isn't posted by both parties. By virtue of this fact, if the first round is forfeited then my opponent would not win, in fact, he cannot win. Considering this, due to software limitations, the topic is completely accurate regardless of what my opponent says or does."

Remember, I forfeited Round 1, and it was not canceled. A forfeit entails me not posting an argument for a round. I forfeited because I did not use an argument. So this topic is not accurate.

He dropped all my rebuttals to his case. You flow them across, and I win this debate.
Thank you.