Charlie Sheen is more socially undesirable than Lindsey Lohan.

However, to avoid confusion in the future, I will individually address all points he makes. To begin: My opponent notes that Lindsey Lohan has done the following: stolen a necklace (that she was convicted for), drinking while driving (which she was also convicted of), and the list goes on. I notice a recurring pattern here. .. as I am sure that any judge of this debate would as well. In every instance, Lohan was convicted of wrong doing and faced the consequences of her actions. While there is no doubt that she is, perhaps, a less than savory individual -on every occasion she has faced the consequences for her antisocial behavior. Presumably, she will continue to do so. Charlie Sheen, by contrast, has not -or at least hasn't at the time of this debate. I hope he will (but as of yet it seems he is above the law). I will say, as an aside, that Lohan's political beliefs, while absurd, are of practically no consequence. I mean, who takes their political cues from a convicted felon with multiple DUIs? My opponent listed this little gem that I think you all should enjoy, seen here: "According to Pro, Charlie Sheen only "crime" is cocaine use. I should remind the audience that since Pro is entering his final line, he cannot indict new arguments or evidence proving that Charlie Sheen has antisocial behavior. " My opponent has entirely disregarded the real harm caused by Charlie Sheen, writing it off as "irrelevant" because he can't refute it -how pretentious of him, almost as pretentious as defining rules two rounds into the debate. If I wanted to introduce new evidence, of course I could, because I didn't stipulate that I wouldn't. Rather, of course, than focusing on the crux of the message I'm getting across here, my opponent would rather take a passive-aggressive lunge at my case while trying to trick a judge into thinking that any response would be "against the rules. " I ask my opponent: What rules, good sir? Those rules that I never defined? Those rules that you never agreed to? Ah! Those rules. .. yeah. .. the ones that don't exist! Such folly. .. The fundamental problem that my opponent seems limited by is his affinity to compare Sheen and Lohan on the basis of what crimes they have committed, not the impact that such unsavory activity is inclined to have on society in general -even less the message that such activity sends. That message, the message that people can buck up against society, do drugs, solicit prostitutes, (live like Charlie Sheen) and get away with it. .. that is the real societal harm. (On a more nuanced note, since societal harm is, in fact, the metric for social undesirability -and my opponent has only cited localized stuff for Lohan, nothing he has said up to this point holds any water to the topic we are discussing. ) My opponent has made a lot of semantic claims, that I am sure any voter will recognize as patent absurdity. In truth, this debate is one of patent absurdity, so I suppose the topicality of what this lovely discussion does lend itself to such claims. Nevertheless, that does not give my opponent licensee to just run off the deep end here. Now, how to vote. .. since of course that's what you have been waiting for: My opponent hasn't offered a scintilla of evidence to suggest that the magnitude of harm caused by Lindsey Lohan exceeds that of Charlie Sheen. The resolution states that "Charlie Sheen is more socially undesirable than Lindsey Lohan. " More undesirable, on a scale, means 50% +1. What, then, is cause to tip the scale? Did Lindsey Lohan give an interview with Katie Couric where she flaunted her debauchery before the world? No. Did Lindsey Lohan act like she was not only not sorry, but proud of her unrepentant drug use? No. Did Lindsey Lohan dodge the consequences of her actions, leading people to believe that they can get away with living like Charlie Sheen? No. Of course Lohan didn't! Why? Because she's not Charlie Sheen! I compel the voter to do their own research on the matter, and ask themselves, who would I rather see put out to grass? Sheen or Lohan? An honest and candid examination of the facts in this debate lead to no other conclusion that Charlie Sheen ought to be put out to grass, and sooner rather than later. Lohan is just a nuisance. Sheen is actually causing harm! Sheen did plead guilty to previous arrest charges, assualt, criminal mischef, and a plethora of drug charges, (source= . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) but he has faced no consequence for his latest "run. " That latest bender (the one he bragged about to Couric) is the one that I take so much issue with (seen here = . http://video.theweek.com...). Now, I know my opponent didn't intentionally try to mislead any would-be voters here -but it seems that unwittingly he has. Of course, I say "unwittingly" because I would never call the integrity of a debater into question in a desperate attempt to secure a victory -unless, of course, I was debating Charlie Sheen in this round. (VOTERS: WATCH THE COURIC-SHEEN INTERVIEW BEFORE VOTING! ) In conclusion, this debate comes down to the societal harm caused by Sheen versus the societal harm caused by Lohan. We accept that both are unsavory characters, but who's actions have a worse impact to society overall? The only way that society overall can be impacted by the negative actions of any individual celebrity is through the message that is sent by those actions. (It's not like you can start a Bill and Melinda Gates Legion of Doom, or get Bono to sponsor terrorism. ) Especially with a comparison of Lohan and Sheen -no one is going to look to b-list actors for anything other than a bad example, principally because if the example were good it wouldn't get any media attention. I mean, when was the last time anyone heard anything about Tom Sellak? So, since the media only pays attention when celebs are misbehaving, who's misbehavior causes more harm? Lohan gets caught -every time. Sheen got away with it, and rubbed it in our faces. His freedom (as opposed to his incarceration) sends the message that says that anyone, as long as they have a crappy sit-com, can get away with anything! Our system of justice, our social mores, society in general all suffer (in spirit) because Sheen can get away with whatever he wants and tell us all about it. My opponent will try, I suppose, to counter. .. but there is no feasible possibility that the message that Lohan sends is worse than Sheen's. As such, sheen is more socially undesirable and I have won this debate.