America, the essence.
Debate Rounds (5)
Firstly, Pro has failed to define *exactly* what his debate is about--however, if one is to base their argument exclusively on his resolution and additional statement, it can easily be negated.
For example, Pro's resolution is: 'America, the essence.'
He then asserts: 'I am innocent until proven guilty'.
As Pro is not America, this is a fallacy.
If this is the case that Pro chose a resolution that bares no relation to what he wanted to argue, then he is still technically the loser of this debate; as the instigator it's on him to make his case as clear as possible and stick to exactly what the resolution is implying.
As far as defining exactly what my debate is about, if you didn't know, then what made you attracted to slaying my words? You are guilty of taking a debate that was unclear, in order to give yourself a win, I believe.
Not that it matters, but one must wonder if you are a second generation American, or just another murderer of America, in order to give an anti Jesus countries zealots power by destroying Americans freedom.
You took the debate, prove me wrong, get your vote in the win column, that's how it works.
I could care less about winning, but Allah? Nope, not so much. Whatever.
To outline some rebuttals however, I'd start off by addressing the lack of clarity in the debate. On the contrary to exploiting that, I view it as useful for Pro to be *told* that when choosing a resolution and a debate topic--it's important to make it as a clear as possible for the opponent.
What was *not* clear is that Pro was referring to America (I.E the United States) in his resolution yet himself in his round one, which for obvious reasons automatically makes it perplexing.
Pro states that on the basis that he's from America, his initial argument (which is rather more just one small sentence) is logically justified, when clearly it isn't and this once more a fallacy.
Pros questioning as to myself being a 'second generation American' are also irrelevant, especially as I am absolutely not American and have never even visited the country.
Again, it bares no relation to the resolution or indeed the topic that Pro is supposedly debating.
As for Pros last sentence, evidently it doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever.
In addition he still continues to make accusations like 'PC puppet' when I have given absolutely no indication of being 'politically correct', in fact that particular term bares no relation to this debate at all.
As does me being a allegedly being a 'capitalist', which is actually incorrect.
In the end, we will all lose, I believe.
Due the complete lack of coherent arguments/rebuttals from the debate instigator, vote CON.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to meet the burden of proof.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.