The crux of PRO's argument relies on his ability to furnish new arguments unhindered to CON of Debate A, thus being to build his case unobstructed. The fallacy is obvious in the debate description PRO mentions
This debate is considered to be part of Debate A.
He fails to mention in what way CON of this debate(Debate B) is to consider the statement. No where in the description that this Debate(B)is to be a continuation of Debate A. Being part of something and being a continuation of something are two very disparate situations. Being in continuation forces Debate B to be a successor of Debate A, but being a part of Debate A puts no such restriction of Debate B. Debate B can be considered before, alingned or after Debate A in a chronological sequence. Thus the relative chronological sequence of Debate A with respect to Debate B will not play a part in this debate.
Since Base argument is defeated, CON furnishes his own arguments:
1. There are can be three different outcomes of Debate A,
P(p)= Pro wins, where P(p) is the probability of Pro winning Debate A
The only outcome that can be drawn for certain, is that P(p)+P(d)+P(c)= 1 or 100% . There can be no other possible outcomes.
Since we are talking about future tense, there can be only two ways to proceed with such a situation,
a) Draw a forcast/ Extrapolate from the past results
b)Qualitative analysis( Judge the debate on its merit)
a) Lets consider weighted average instead of simple average of past wins of both CON and PRO of Debate A:
P(c)= ((number of times of CON of debate A has won in the past )+ (number of times PRO of Debate A has lost in the past))/ Total debates fought by both parties
[Data used is from DebateArt's win record]
= 23/29 or 0.7931
Thus just P(c) =0.7931 or 79.31%
P(c)+P(d)+P(p)=1, thus P(p) cannot be greater than 0.5 or 50%
b)Qualitative analysis cannot be determined as, the merit of debate cannot be determined when this debate began,since all arguments in their entirity were not available, thus there is no definite way to detemine who could have won. Even if the arguments were available Qualitative analysis are subjective, that is, there is quite a bit of vairiance involved, thus PRO will definitely fail to enhance his point using this route.
Conclusion: With base argument defeated and one way favouring CON of Debate A, one way favouring None in case determination of who would win Debate A, CON of Debate B claims victory! Since PRO has definitely fail to substantiate his claim for victory.