I'll begin by noting that I am participating in this debate simply because it was sent as a challenge to me personally (that's the only reason I take debates "like this"), implying that the debater wanted to debate me specifically. So here goes. The instigator of this debate begins by noting that fashion is in you, and that you can't go a day without fashion. First, Pro must prove her statement that fashion is "inside of us." Second, I'll define fashion - a prevailing custom or style of dress . If my opponent disputes this definition, we can take it from there; however, I refute her statement on the basis that one can easily go a day without fashion (wearing clothes) meaning once again her statement is unsupported. So, before we continue any further, I'll ask that Pro clarify or prove her opening statements. As for my rebuttal, I'll begin by defining the word everything - every thing or particular of an aggregate or total; all . Clearly, any definition of 'fashion' that you use does not encompass all things, therefore fashion is not and can not be everything. That said, I'll let Pro respond before continuing any further with this debate. Good luck, Pro.