Mimes ought to have a voice in Congress.

I would like the audience to please not look to my opponents "Faulty 4" Judgments, supposedly justifying mimes to have a voice in congress, as none of them give significant reason to give them one. Let's find these 4 fallacies shall we? 1. Mimes are human. Agreed, quite the obvious statement in fact. However, the statement doesn't actually provide any underlying argument, and could have been surmised plainly if tied in properly with two. The extra "point" was perhaps useless, in providing "information" already known unto the audience. Thus the first fallacy. 2. Humans have equal rights. Exactly. And a mime choosing not to voice one's opinions in a congress session or to even be included in that session would be his/her own choice. A mime, being a free American citizen has every available option unto him, including that of speech if he/she chooses. If a mime were to include his/herself in congress, they would have the same available equal rights as any other human. We are simply not violating their human rights. Also as far as I know, there isn't any actual law forbidding the use of hand gestures in congress. Even so mimes can permit other ways of communication outside of body movements, and sound. This 'argument' really holds no weight. 3. Mimes have no representation in congress. Mimes have not been openly refused a place in congress though either, so what counter-claim is being made here? By saying mimes have no representation in congress, you are in a sense claiming that some congressman is out their actively dis-allowing mimes a spot in congress? Again mimes have the same human rights, which led in to my point of "if mimes really wanted a spot in congress what would lead you to believe they couldn't get one?". Which then concludes that over-all, mimes do not want a spot in congress. You say I need proof? The proof is in plain sight. Do you see any mimes pro-testing lack of freedom? 4. Some humans have representation in congress. And some humans don't. This doesn't mean they are granted the same available opportunities at a spot in congress however. This is probably the biggest of the faulty fours fallacies. Those who wish representation in congress, take the neccesary steps to achieve this goal. Those who don't, cannot complain their rights are being violated, as they have not attempted to achieve representation in congress. Given all of the faulty "logic" my opponent has provided, I would like you (the audience) to please drop any and all "arguments" made from the pro position. The resolution has not been upheld. Going on to my own arguments. 1. My opponents attack on my first argument suggests that mimes are a suffering diverse people. Do you intend to speak for all mimes? A mimes way of life style is chosen by the mime themselves. What other rights are supposedly granted to other people that is withdrawn from the presence of a mime? There is obviously no answer for this because mimes already get the same exact rights as everyone else. To place them in a different class, is discrimination from my opponent, in and of itself! Mimes have no need for a spot in congress, else they would choose not to be mimes. 2. My opponent, I'm afraid, is vastly confused as to the implications behind my second point. My opponent assumes that I am saying no minority should have a right in congress, when I am in fact saying, why just mimes? What makes a mime more important than a biker, and his rights? Mimes of course have the same freedoms and rights as everyone else, but why is soundist discrimination upheld by my opponent over all other discrimination's? Really how much hate does it hold over any other discrimination? Again, if mimes should get a spot in congress so should everyone else. 3. I have already mentioned a good deal about three above, but allow me to re-iterate. If a mime wanted representation in congress bad enough, he/she would have it already. The fact that a mime has not issued him/herself in congress, obviously proves that it is not in a mimes intentions, or agenda to include themselves in congress. We absolutely need to keep in mind that mimes have not been openly discriminated against by any congress. My opponent is presenting a rather faulty indiscrmination do to the fact that mimes are un-noticed by congress. This however doesn't mean the are dis-associated from congress. Given my opponents logic, I could easily say that he is being indiscriminative to bikers, because the resolution didn't include bikers in its title. Given that my opponent didn't mention them, he is being a noise-ist! It's now easy to see the big logical fallacy with my opponents "Logic". To conclude, the obvious vote, should be a con vote, as I have proven that mimes are not being actively discriminated by congress, and that indiscrimination is fallatic at best. Also I have proven, that it is obvious it is not in a mimes intention to be represented in congress, due to the obvious fact that there ARENT any mimes who have even attempted to submit their voice to congress. And last I deserve a pro vote because I have proven that A mime shouldn't be classified into a minority group being discriminated against, but rather an individual. If that Individual were looking for a spot in congress we have no reason to believe that they wouldn't achieve it due to their choice of life-style. For all these reasons, I strongly urge the voters to vote pro. (P.S.) I apologize for the shortness of round one, as I was busy, and not around a computer, and had to submit the argument off of my Iphone. This problem shouldn't occur again. Also I would like to thank my opponent for a very interesting and fun debating, as I have forgotten to include the formalities in round 1. I am very interested in the remainder of this debate, as a fun and witty challenging opponent.