BOP on this debate + Judging Resolution

There are two reasons why I don't hold the BOP on a resolution like this. First of all, North Korea striking isn't a confirmed or inevitable fact.
With that excluded, Pro still has the BOP to prove we should strike North Korea before they strike us , even if war is inevitable.
-----------------------------------------------------
To relate to this, I think there has been a lot of debate on how to properly judge. Yes, the BOP is important, but it isn't everything.
Classic debate organizations put primary emphasis on speaking, not "X proved his point over Y".

It isn't about who is right, as much as it is "who was more convincing".

http://www.edeb8.com/debate/secret-topic-29/

I'm most concerned on whether was is inevitable in this resolution.

bump. Only a couple hours to have these questions answered.

Blackflag: I don't usually like to give away specific lines of argumentation that I would use in an ongoing debate, but I will say this: you are free to challenge any assumptions made by pro, and that the way I understand debating, the idea of a shared BOP is logically impossible. Pro obviously has it in that debate.

I always judge the debate to the standard of who is more convincing.

you are free to challenge any assumptions made by pro
I get that, but this is the resolution in specific. I have 8000 characters, I don't want to use them all arguing why the resolution doesn't say North Korea will strike as a fact.

Blackflag: Remind me to explain this after the debate. There is a way around that.

admin: Can you explain it now? I really could use the clarification.
I feel kind of stuck in a hole here.

Blackflag: Uhh - this is where my reluctance to comment on ongoing debates comes into play.

Just - think about it like you're trying to convince a judge. Not like you're trying to convince him. If one side asserts things without evidence, the opposite can also be asserted without evidence.

admin: The resolution seems like evidence though. "That the United States should strike before North Korea does", implies that a third person knows the event will happen for certain. Yet in real life, there is no evidence, and actually lots against the idea, that North Korea would attack.

Blackflag: I don't read it that way, it seems to argue that pre-emptive strike would be justified, not that a pre-emptive strike is needed now.

In the realms of military conflict, the general consensus seems to be that the instigator is usually in the wrong. This resolution seems to challenge that general rule when it comes to the US VS N Korea.

You're reading a timeframe into it which has not been mentioned.

nzlockie: I determined in chat with another user that resolutions don't prove facts, and since their is no rule saying an attack is destined to happen, Pro must prove that himself.

Blackflag: *there