Staring at A Woman's Assets is a Form of a Compliment

First off, I would like to say, that I clearly did refute your argument. In fact, I think I did a good job, as a result of your extreme lack of analysis in your observation. Please note that PRO merely asked questions, and did not expand on those. All PRO did in the first round was re-iterate the resolution title, using different wording. In fact, half of his argument were questions like: "Why must a woman be angry if I am stating (through my stare) "holy smokes, you, ma'am, have something that is to be envied by other women. " Is it bad if i find a woman appealing? Does the woman prefer i think her to be my ugly, sagging 70-year old neighbor" PRO does not give enough analysis. As such, my refutation was limited because there literally, was nothing to refute. Understanding that, voters, it is obvious that my opponent has limited skill in debating. Burden of Proof Analysis: The CON PRO agrees with the BOP I outlined for myself. What I find odd is that in the latter part of the analysis, PRO makes a contradiction. "(I never stated women appreciate staring, I stated they like compliments[I was speaking of verbal compliments], so staring can be another form of a compliment. )" "I never stated women appreciate staring, I stated they like compliments. " First, let me establish that this PRO applies to all women, from the term "they", therefore, this has the same meaning as the statement "All women like compliments. " Next, "Staring is another form of compliment. " Previously, PRO said that all women like compliments, and if staring is another form of compliment, all women therefore like staring. The PRO Now, PRO completely sets a low BOP for himself. He says that all women should appreciate staring, which is changed from my outline: all women will appreciate staring. Now why is this unfair? Because people should do alot of things. You can say that someone should do anything. My opponent should join the army. I should become the tallest basketball player alive. I should shoot the president of the United States. The point is, people should do alot of things, but that does not necessarily mean that the person will do it, or in this case, will appreciate the staring. Again, PRO is thinking too narrowly and generalizes all women as having one opinion, to should appreciate staring. This BOP that PRO has set for himself is too low and is not equal. Therefore, the BOP that I outlined previously is the one PRO should fulfill. Also, as I stated in my CON analysis, PRO himself stated that all women appreciate staring, and that is what he must prove, lest there be a contradiction in his case. Reconstruction of My Points:Contention 1a)As I pointed out, PRO himself stated that all women appreciate staring. Thus, this point is unrefuted by PRO. I stated that it is false, not all women appreciate staring, as it can feel like they are being violated. In fact, this does not even apply to just women. . http://www.socialanxietysupport.com...People just generally hate strangers staring at them in public. Thus, my point still stands, because if people hate others staring at them, they should not, and will not take that as a compliment. That is common sense. Contention 1b)PRO misrepresents my argument. I did not say that rape victims have a right not to take staring as a compliment. I merely extended PRO's case so that he can see the fail logic he is using. Pro states that all women appreciate compliments, and staring is a form of a compliment because you are applauding the woman's figure. If you take that a step further, rape would also be considered a form of compliment because you are applauding her figure. In PRO's own words, "holy smokes, you, ma'am, have something that is to be envied by other women" and he "should not be punished for recognizing that fact". This essentially is what PRO is saying. Staring is sexual in nature, and since rape is also sexual in nature, PRO's logic should also apply to rape. Thus, PRO condones rape as a compliment. Now PRO goes on to deny that he thinks rape as a compliment. This is a huge contradiction, as using his logic, he condoned rape as a compliment. But let's go along with it anyways. Now, assuming PRO does not think rape is a compliment, he goes on to say that "Staring is enjoying what one sees, not infringing upon that women's right. Rape is violently overriding that woman's right, causing physical harm to that woman. No way would I agree rape is a compliment, because it induces PAIN, staring does not. "Staring is in fact an infringement on women's rights. It infringes the right to security. If someone kept staring at you, you would feel unsafe and uncomfortable. In fact, continuous staring is a form of sexual harassment. Thus it infringes on women's rights. Next. PRO says rape infringes on women's rights. Okay, I agree. Then PRO goes on to say that rape is not a compliment because it induces pain, and staring does not. Hold up. Staring does cause pain, emotional pain, trauma. I agree that it is not physical pain, like rape, but you will still feel pain from having almost all the guys stare at your chest. It causes emotional harm and trauma. Who are you to classify whether one is more painful than the other? They are equally painful. PRO says that rape causes pain, and thus it's not a compliment. I proved that staring causes emotional pain and trauma, still pain, and following PRO's logic, it is not a compliment. This is a contradction, directly clashing with the resolution title: "Staring is a form of compliment" because I just proved that "Staring is not a form of compliment" using PRO's logic. Now, I'm thoroughly confused. It seems that PRO doesn't know what he himself is arguing in, since using his logic, rape is a form of compliment. Then he says that Rape is not a form of compliment, and using the same reasoning, I proved that staring is not a compliment. Therefore, it is obvious PRO has conceded this debate. Contention 2. PRO says that to avoid stares, people should wear non-revealing clothes. Okay stop right there. WTF? !? !? Okay, first, let me establish that everyone has the freedom of expression, to express themselves however way they want, be it clothing, art, whatever. Now, what you wear, is a form of expression. . http://www.dhstelegram.com...Now, PRO wants to limit women's freedom of expression, just so that he can stare at women's assets. That's ridiculous. What PRO has essentially said is that if people don't want others staring at their bodies, they should wear less revealing clothes. That's not the proper solution. People have the right to wear whatever they want, and they should not have to forsake that just to prevent staring, as staring is an infringement on rights. Therefore, PRO is obviously flawed in his logic. ConclusionPRO has not fulfilled his BOP that all women enjoy people staring at them. As being stared at infringes on the rights of the woman, they should not have to take it as a compliment. As such, it is obvious that I have won this debate.