This Debate Will End in a Tie

Status quo

because the default result of a debate is a tie, if neither side defeats the other, it will be a tie. Hence, this debate will be a tie.

Equal opportunities

a debate has three outcomes: pro wins, tie, or con wins. But since each debater has equal character limit, time to post, and resources of the internet, I'm not seeing clear ideas that help either pro or con. As such, pro and con are equal and this debate will end in a tie.

Limited time

There is only one week to vote on this debate after it ends. Since this is a highly unorthodox debate, I feel like it wouldn't attract voters very well. As such, the debate will end in a tie.

It is a fact that humans cannot know the future, especially over 7 days of the future. PRO's evidence is merely that this debate is most likely going to end in a tie, but not that it will, 100%, assuredly, end in a tie.

The argument above defeats PRO's whole argument because PRO's "argument" proves not PRO's BoP, thus CON wins this debate by now.

Common sense. If PRO loses this debate, it means he will not tie this debate.

Overall, PRO failed to fulfill his BoP because it is basically impossible. Because of that, I declare it is unsupported to declare that this debate will end in a tie.

If my opponent considers everything above mere gish gallop, then he has the ability to win it, which means not tying.

con says I can't know the future, but the default is already tied which I know with 100% certainty. He says he doesn't see any support but the status quo is already a tie, and he has to give good reasons why either side won the debate. Remember that even if one of us won the debate, con hasn't offered any reason why people would vote on it in the first place. I said it's not a significant topic and wouldn't attract voters. Everyone would be confused who to vote for (since I am advocating for a tie, while con has to assert various reasons why one of us won) and make it a tie. We already see him making an argument for himself, then making an argument for me. You can see the confusion is even getting to con and his arguments balance out. As such, this debate will end in a tie.

Refuting with the status quo is not an efficient matter because, given the same things, the better person will prevail.

Let's compare the best debater and the worst debater statistically within this site.

On one hand, we have the Undefeated Oromagi with a current record of 86:0. On the other, we have a semi-troll who may or may not be offensive, and may even forfeit. In this discourse, Oro is the only one that has given a sufficient argument, hence he prevails. This is an example of that the better you are, the more you will bring out based on what you have.

This image disproves my opponent. I am not encouraging inequality but this shows the taller guy can see the match better whereas the shorter guy can't. Pro is illustrating that because everyone is has given the same thing, they will tie it. If so, it would mean the short guy will see the match as well as the taller guy because equality, which is not what is happening based on common sense.

In other words, the better debater will probably prevail, and this system is not designed to tie every debate. This system is to bring equality(same grounds, the winner is better arguing what he/she/they have argued), not equity(The goal of this system is to bring ties).

As long as Pro's argument wins against Con's or the other way around, this will not end up a tie. This would mean even if Pro successfully refutes Con in this round leaving Con speechless, Pro also loses since it would mean a non-tie.

my opponent makes an excellent argument, but has made no case concerning whether or not he is actually better than me. There is too less information to know who will win with 100% certainty -- he only has 17 debates with 80% winrate, but I have over 350 debates with 60% winrate( https://www.debate.org/9spaceking/ + my own profile here). This debate is also highly unorthodox and he has never had this exact debate before. I have experience advantage, but a lot of times I tend to pick debates I can't win. So we don't know for sure who's going to win this debate. As such, both sides are at an equity, a stalemate, and hence the debate will end in a tie. The fact that con also can't predict the future with 100% certainty means the only information we have available is, with no information given by both participants, this debate will be a tie. Consider if both pro and con forfeited each round, it would be a tie right? Or if pro said he knew nothing about the topic, and con said he also knew nothing and both sides couldn't prove anything, the debate would also end in a tie. As we each give decent arguments to both sides, it's unclear who has the advantage, and thus, this debate will end in a tie.

Pro's BoP is that he is sure that this debate will be a tie, not just most likely, but assuredly. Let me summarize all the points Pro made in this debate.

I will refute each of the five(again).

As I have said the last round, the status quo is tying, which is true, however, just because the default is tying doesn't mean this debate WILL tie considering if someone votes either side, then it is no tie. Pro cannot negate this scenario. Plus, using my evidence, almost every debate I have been in has at least one vote[1], so saying there is none would be unlikely, let alone 100% likely.

As I have explained last round, this website does offer everyone equal chances, which is correct. However, the better debater prevails. This website does not make the worse debaters easier. It is sheer equality. Now, I can prove that I am better than my opponent: Upon all the debates we have engaged in voting or post-voting period, the win ratio is 6:1[2], which would mean that I have won against my opponent in 83% of our debates, which would mean I am more likely to win this debate, which would negate a tie. Even if Pro proved that he is better at debating, it would just mean Pro will win, which would mean a non-tie. Either way, unless Pro, which has the BoP, proves that both of us have the exact same skill and arguments, it is impossible to say that it is a tie.

If people are voting on a confusing debate like this one[3](No concessions here), then people are more likely than unlikely to vote on this one. Again, even if no one votes on this one, Pro still cannot prove that no one will vote definitely because there is a chance someone will vote. I have put this debate up for solicitation on the respective thread[4], which would mean that people are more likely to vote than to not vote.

I have stated that the ratio of me winning and losing against my opponent is 6:1, and previous experiences would obviously be less reliable about the present than the relatively close evidence. I cannot 100% prove that Con is better than Pro, but what I can prove is that this won't 100% end in a tie.

Here lies the problem: Pro, by default, bears the BoP. So, if he is pushing the BoP onto me that would be considered a fallacy. Pro is the one that needs to prove that this will end up a tie, and he did not do that: Merely that I have not proven my case. If Pro failed to prove his BoP, then please vote for me! Vote for Con!

[1]https://www.debateart.com/participants/Intelligence_06/debates?

[2]ibid

[3]https://www.debateart.com/debates/2245-con-will-lose-this-debate-named-debate-a

[4]https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3492-vote-requests