Walmart would love to medicate me, with .gov's blessing.
Debate Rounds (3)
Opponent has full BoP to prove that Walmart would love to medicate him.
Now the BOP is on you to prove me as a liar.
You accepted the BOP is yours.
Why do you play the game every time by pointing the BOP at the stater of the argument, while supplying none of your own as the disagreer.
America live under the premise "innocent until proven guilty".
Not from here are you?
My opponent has to prove that walmart wants your income.
He is "not saying" his income on his profile, therefore we can deduce he is ashamed and is too poor to declare how much money he earns, with him earning no money whatsoever.
Walmart cannot want to bless you if you have no money to do so.
Obviously, if I had taken the option of 1 billion dollars per year as the description of my worth you would respect me more, greedy King.
My net worth is in the 100k to 200k range, after 41 years of blood and sweat on this planet, plenty of both.
I get no scholarships, grants, or complimentary vacations.
Please disclose all of yours honestly.
Like that will ever happen.
My opponent hasn't proved that his net worth is that much, nor has he refuted why he STILL doesn't have an explanation for how much he earns on his profile. He losses.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by carriead20 2 years 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||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not state why Wal-Mart would love to medicate him. Con discredited any other arguments
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.