Quick disclaimer, I'm sorry I took so long in publishing this argument, but it has been pretty busy for me lately, and I probably shouldn't have accepted. That said, I will try my best to be a good opponent for you.
Interpreting the resolution.
I think there are two ways that we can look at the title you provided.
The first way I read it was, "rich elites are not above the law, and the Trump trial demonstrated that." I think this is what you're going for, but I'm just making sure. If this one were true, I would only have to demonstrate that either "rich elites are not above the law", and/or "the Trump trial did not demonstrate that they are above the law" in order to show that the resolution was false.
Then it occurred to me that you might be saying something else. The second possible meaning of this is "regardless of if elites are above the law, the Trump trial proved that they are not". In this case, I could argue that rich elites are above the law, or I could argue that they are not above the law, but the Trump trial did not prove this.
Correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption, but from what I can tell, for either resolution I do not have to prove that rich elites are above the law, I simply must prove that the Trump trial doesn't prove this. For the first one, I can address either point, but i'm going to stick with the second one.
One final thing about the resolution, I'm going to assume that all I must do to render the resolution false in either scenario is to mention a single scenario where a rich elite was "above the Law". I don't really know if there is a time period on this or not. Perhaps I must provide an example that occurs after the Trump verdict, or I can choose any instance. Please clarify.
Arguments
Now that we've established that I only need to prove that the Trump Trial doesn't prove this (again, correct me if I'm wrong), then I'll start by defining some terms.
The word "Proved" is a very strong word, so I'm going to include my definition. If you have any complaints about it, we can agree on another one.
Prove: To create reasoning that makes something undeniably true or false.
By that definition, did the Trump trial make it so that rich elites are undeniably above the law with no way to make it go otherwise? I say no. It is still a possibility that a rich elite does not get prosecuted for a crime. Therefore, the Trump trial did not "prove" anything, it just demonstrated and provided some evidence that rich elites might not ever be above the law again.
Conclusion
The word "proved" is very strong, and should not be used in cases such as this. Therefore, my opponent cannot meet his burden of proof because they set out to say that one thing proves another, when in this case, it cannot possibly do that.
I yield the floor.
votes
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Owen_T // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: "American debater forfeiture"
>Reason for Mod Action:
Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
**************************************************
I also think you should probably remove your vote. If you want to do a real one, that’s fine, but if not that’s also okay.
Thanks for the insight. I'll ask to appeal my vote and write a new one.
Voting conduct only due to forfeiture is allowed, but only if one party misses 40% of the debate or more due to forfeitures. Missing one round in a three round debate doesn't meet this bar, so you do actually have to explain the arguments section of your vote.
Furthermore, your reasoning is flawed by assuming that it's impossible to run out of time, resulting in an automatic forfeit of a round. I was unable to write anything because time ran out. Common sense dictates that a person's willingness to engage in a debate up to the final round indicates a clear interest in continuing the debate. Therefore, it should be evident that not stating my continued interest does not equate to an intentional forfeit in the last round.
This does not change the fact that there has been no forfeiture. Forfeiture occurs when a party fails to participate for multiple rounds, or sometimes for an entire round, or if they explicitly state their concession. In contrast, I have actively participated in the debate up until the final round. Your vote does not comply with the rules. It is evident that I have put forward numerous arguments which you have overlooked, and you have not explained what my opponent said that convinced you to vote in their favor. Please cast your vote again in the proper manner, considering the arguments presented by all sides throughout the debate, and provide a genuine reason for your decision, or I will have to report this to the moderators as it is clearly unfair.
It was the final round with no explanation. You had two weeks to write an argument. You could have added something like "I don't have time to write an argument, but I do not concede."
Missing one round is not a fioriture.