Was Julius Caesar ambitious to a fault? (W.S. Play)

I admit I phrased my previous speech wrong. I'd just like to clarify in this speech of mine that what I meant by saying that Caesar was ambitious was that he may have been a little overconfident. And I would again like to remind you that Caesar's assassination does have to do with his so claimed ambition and also with Brutus since the main reason that Brutus gave for having murdered Caesar was his ever growing ambition. Thus Caesar's ambition, his assassination and Brutus are interlinked throughout the story. Hence Caesar's ambition does have to do with the conspirators assassinating him under the pretext of him being ambitious. Again I'd like to clarify these certain points of clash: 1.Caesar may have some fears but then again which man doesn't. Claiming that Caesar's fear of Cassius is a proof of him being ambitious is not fair on your part. And even if I am to take you at your best case "He wants to seem brave and strong to the people. He wants the people to not know his weaknesses. He is scared to the point he has to act as if he is not afraid." I feel that as a ruler he has certain expectations to fulfill and no kingdom can function if the public views their own ruler to be weak. Thus as their king Caesar is obligated to make them feel secure even if it means hiding that small amount of fear that he might have in him. Thus your argument of Caesar being scared of Cassius to prove his ambition just seems too unfair. 2. I accept the fact that I used outside information to justify Caesar's seizure at the time of the Lupercal but that was just to highlight the fact that seizures can occur due to various reasons and imposing the idea that the sole reason for this is Caesar's ambition is like trying to ignore the various other possibilities and clearly shows your inability to view the bigger picture. And since you yourself pointed out the fact that heavy emotions are one of the causes of seizures there always exists the possibility that Caesar might have had a huge wave of thrill when he saw all his subjects cheering for him at the Lupercal. And since your rebuttal also relies only on the possibility that the heavy emotion could have been his fear that the people don't want him as a leader anymore I really don't see how it holds any water over mine since both rely only on the possibilities. But mine has higher chances of being the truth since people were cheering and screaming for him and their admiration for him are definitely more likely to have caused intense happiness than the fear that you claim. 3. I would like to remind you that Caesar already had been accepted as the supreme ruler by the people and I really don't see why he needed a crown to add more power since he already had a lot of power. Decius Brutus's reasons seem more legitimate to Caesar than those of Calpurnia's because Brutus's reasons are based on logic and the real life possible consequences that may follow if he decided not to go to the senate that day while Calpurnia's reason were all just too superstitious and were based on no logic whatsoever but rather on the dreams that she and the watchman had seen. Since Caesar is already a huge critic of superstitious beliefs and practices ( "Yet Caesar shall go forth; for these predictions are to the world in general as to Caesar) it is just more probable that he pays heed to Brutus's advice rather than to those of Calpurnia's for Brutus manages to appeal to Caesar's sense of thinking rather than what he believes in (unlike Calpurnia). Caesar ends up going to the senate mainly because it is not just a place where people just hand out crowns but at that time was somewhat like a parliament where policies were debated and as a king it would be his duty to set aside his family obligations and pay more attention to the functioning of his state which could be done by implementing laws after being thoroughly debated in the parliament/senate. 4. You are just ignoring so many other instances which show that Caesar was a modest king and had the capability to refuse the crown in front of the public for he was a humble man. If he really were arrogant then why did he refuse the crown THREE times?! Why did he spend his own property to free the Roman men and bring them back to their country? Why did he give freedom to his people to move to any country for education and well being in his will? Because he didn't want to enslave anybody - right! And most importantly he also wept when the poor cried, and to quote Antony "Ambition should be made of sterner stuff"! 5. Caesar just uses the words "I could be well moved if I were you." as a comparative to show people that he is unable to change his mind and bend the law unlike other people because of the huge amount of respect that he has for the law and claims to be as constant as the northern star only to use it as analogy to strengthen his case. Thus Caesar if really were as ambitious as you claim him to be he definitely would have implemented extreme policies and enslaved people instead of bringing home the Roman prisoners by spending his own property and wealth. He wouldn't have given people the right and freedom to move to any country in his will. He might have been a little overconfident but certainly not ambitious thus I conclude highlighting how your facts and reasons are only based on your narrow-minded perception of why Caesar did all those things where you claim him to be ambitious, completely ignoring the vast possibilities while all that I've done is show you the other possible ones and explain why are they more likely to be the truth whereas you have only thrown your interpretation of the facts with no justification for them on your side. Hence I very strongly feel that I've won this debate! I rest my case.