x. Burden of proof 

• This debate is resolved "Barney is not a good debater." The negative in this sentence makes the topic a negative assertion or proposition. In philosophy, a negative claim is the opposite of an affirmative or positive claim. It asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. When we consider the negative statement “there are no dinosaurs left," or “there is no unicorn in my house," these are obvious observations of the status quo state of the globe.
• The logic of the maxim "[e]verything which is not forbidden is allowed" can roughly be applied likewise. In a world without people making rules, there is nothing that is not allowed. Similarly, in a world where there are no stipulations (the status quo) the default position absences good, bad, right, or wrong and purports the negation or lack of such properties (not good, not bad).
• Consequently, we can see that my side of the resolution has been satisfied by being the default position (not good not entailing bad but lacking the "good" quality). Therefore, the entire burden of proof lies on con to demonstrate the positive assertion. 

y. Overview 

• What standard for evidence ought to be accepted? 
  • Barney is known (presumptuously) as a "good" debater so it is easy for people to assume this as a default position. To remove the preconceived biases, voters should judge the debate with the following set of conditions. 
  • Imagine that there is a new, 1500-rated unprofiled user who pops up (representing the default). Barney’s burden of proof is to summon evidence such that if this hypothetical noob were to embody Barney’s given proof, you would then consider him good (e.g., if Barney gives you a debate, consider it devoid of Barney - think if you would consider the debate if performed by the hypothetical new user, good enough to raise the debater to the status of “good”). 
• What is a good debater?
  • As stipulated in the description, good refers to high quality; excellent and debater can be defined as a person who argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner according to the OED. As such, a “good debater” is someone who can participate, to a high quality (excellent) in arguments about a subject, especially in a formal manner. 

a.1 “Good” is not defined by debateart.com. 

• As aforementioned, it is evident that neither definition of “good” or “debater” includes mentions of our specific website. The debate does not inquire as to whether Barney is good with respect to the standards of the site or whether Barney is good in relation to users on debateart.com, but whether he is good period.
• Con can't go down the route of arguing he is good within the site's parameters without first forfeiting to a fallacy of equivocation as such an inference would be categorically immaterial to our resolution. 

a.2 Category analysis

• Suppose I created a chess club online that attracts 1000 users. Assume it has a leaderboard and I am number one, yet the actual moves that I make are, according to a chess computer, poor moves, indicating that I have a low play accuracy overall. If someone asks—are you good at chess?—I will not say "yes, my ranking on this obscure site is good," because when someone asks are you good at chess, they mean chess in terms of your ability to make good moves. It is entirely possible, after all, that I have exploited the site, challenging only inexperienced users, or that all the users are children who are beginners in chess. Thus, it is clear that mere ranking is insufficient in determining whether someone is good. Likewise, one's ranking is insufficient to indicate whether or not someone is a good debater. 
• To understand whether I am good at chess, we must look at the definitions of “good” and “chess” together and calculate whether I meet the criteria. This would involve analyzing the plays that I make, and observing the strength of my moves. Whatever the case, it is clear that a long win streak or a big pile of wins on this chess site does not mean that I am a good chess player, because the criteria for being a good chess player lie outside of the parameters of the site. 
• If a variable (x) as Barney's statistics on debate art is taken to entail (y): being good at debating, this is invalid by category error. x is merely the data pool from which we extract information—not the category we seek to evaluate. 
• Overarching, the point is evident. Even further suppose I go to the pub White Lion. At the pub, there is a leaderboard for the best pool players. Now, imagine if I were number one. Does this mean I am a good pool player? No—being a good pool player would involve an analysis of how quickly I can hit all the balls into the holes. It is possible to be bad at pool whilst still being number one within a set of players. Now if being good at pool is not necessarily linked with being number on in the White Lion leaderboard, and being good at chess is not necessarily linked with having a good ranking on an online club, being good at debating is not necessarily linked with having a good Elo rating on debateart.com. 
• While a high ranking may imply that they are good at debating relative to the poor confines of a certain environment, it does not demonstrate an accurate representation of skill at a given act. A strong win record is, on its own, worthless. 

b. If not debateart.com, then who? 

• Being good at debating is not defined by how good you are on this site, but the definition posed and agreed to as follows: Good of high quality; excellent. For con to even have a coherent argument, he must prove that he argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner to a high-quality worthy of being excellent. Do Barney's debateart performances indicate his? Absolutely not.