YOU HAVE HOLES IN YOUR SOCKS

I BELIEVE THAT THE OPPONENT OF THIS DEBATE HAS HOLES IN THEIR SOCKS, AND THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REPLACE THE ONES THEY HAVE.

I strongly negate the resolution for three reasons:

1) The resolution assumes I own socks. For all my opponent knows, I could possible not be financially secure enough to own a pair of socks. Either that, or maybe I don't wear socks. Maybe I find the climate in my area to be warm enough to the point that I don't need socks. Or maybe I'm just too lazy to purchase a pair of socks.

2) Maybe my legs have been amputated.

3) Most importantly, the burden of proof belongs to my opponent. I challenge him to prove that I live up to condition provided in the previous reasons as well as prove that these socks possess holes.

In this debate, I will urge that it's merely within the realm of possibility that I have socks with holes, but that my opponent won't be able to provide decisive evidence which is needed to prove the resolution.

Thank you.

OK, ALL I HAVE TO DO IS PROVE THAT MY OPPONENT HAS LEGS, OWNS SOCKS AND WEARS THEM, AND THAT THE SOCKS HE OWNS HAVE HOLES IN THEM. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DO AN EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND CHECK ON HIM. I WILL NEED HIS MEDICAL RECORDS, BANK / FINANCIAL RECORDS, SEVERAL REFERENCES, HIS CONTACT INFORMATION INCLUDING NAME / ADDRESS / PHONE NUMBERS / EMPLOYER INFORMATION / ETC AND THAT OF HIS CLOSEST FAMILY AND FRIENDS FOR INTERVIEW PURPOSES, POLICE / CRIMINAL / PERMANENT RECORDS, DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER / BMV RECORDS, MOST RECENT PICTURES, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, AND SCHOOL RECORDS. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THESE REQUESTS ON MY OPPONENTS BEHALF IS BASICALLY A FORFEIT DUE TO THE FACT THAT SUCH ACTION WOULD BE AN INTENTIONAL IMPEDING OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THIS DEBATE.

ONCE IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT MY OPPONENT INDEED OWNS SOCKS, ALL I HAVE TO DO IS PROVE THAT THERE ARE HOLES IN THEM. ASSUMING THAT WE ARE DEBATING ABOUT SOCKS IN THE CONVENTIONAL SENSE, THAT IS THAT THEY ARE MADE OF A MATERIAL AND INTENDED TO COVER HUMAN FEET, ALL SOCKS HAVE HOLES WHICH ALLOW A PERSON TO INSERT HIS OR HER FOOT. IF MY OPPONENT OWNS SOCKS THEN HIS SOCKS HAVE HOLES IN THEM FOR HIS FEET. IF WE'RE DEBATING ABOUT SOCKS IN AN UNCONVENTIONAL SENSE WHICH MY OPPONENT OWNS SUCH AS SOCKS WITHOUT FOOT HOLES, DECORATIVE SOCKS, A DRAIN PIPE SOCK, ETC, THEN MY OPPONENTS SOCKS STILL HAVE HOLES IN THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE MOLECULARLY AND / OR CELLULARLY PERMEABLE. IF MY OPPONENT CLAIMS TO HAVE AN IMPERMEABLE SOCK, IT WILL HAVE TO BE SHIPPED TO ME SO THAT I MAY VERIFY THAT IT IS INDEED IMPERMEABLE.

YOUR WELCOME

My opponent starts his round by insisting that I provide him with my personal information. In response, I'm going to have to decline his request for it is his job to do his own research for his own arguments. Since he initiated the topic, the burden of proof is his. Demanding that his opponent do so is inappropriate in the context of a debate. Furthermore, none of that information which he requested could be used to confirm whether or not I owned a pair of socks.

Even if I were willing to provide that information, I certainly couldn't fit all of it into this 8,000 character limit. I would need some contact information from my opponent. As you can clearly see, he has provided none, so helping him with his research is completely out of the question.

The fact of the matter is that my opponent is taking a gamble; he is unsure of the outcome of my personal information. The fact that he doesn't KNOW whether or not I even own a pair of socks should be a clear indication that he cannot support his arguments independently. As I predicted, my opponent failed to provide decisive evidence for his claim (or any evidence whatsoever for that matter).

Since this is the Internet, you can't honestly take my word or his word on the matter of whether or not I actually own socks as I could very well lie about the issue. Thus, while still negating the resolution (and as I've suggested in the previous round), I will take the position that it's merely possible that I own socks with holes; contrary to what my opponent insist, it is not certain.

Of course, if you are willing to take my word, then I will say that I don't own a pair of socks at the moment.

In any case, vote CON.