Molesting handicapped orphans is cool

First of all, it's *Miss not Sir. Ok, so we agree that the definition of molestation is "subjecting another individual to unwanted or improper sexual activity" as cited on Dictionary.com. However, that makes your claim that "All molestations are unwelcome(unwanted)" FALSE; the word *or* in the definition means that the term applies to either situation: unwanted OR improper. Therefore an improper sexual activity can be considered molestation even if it is welcomed. This is supported by law. For example, 17 year old Genarlow Wilson received *consensual* oral sex from a 15 year old girl. Neither the girl nor the prosecutor argues that the act was unwelcomed (it was even caught on video tape). However Genarlow Wilson was convicted for aggravated child MOLESTATION (Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com...). Thus, I have proved that the term molestation applies to various sexual scenarios, including those that are welcome. Now because you seem confused about how debate works, you cannot in Round 2 specify that for the purpose of this debate you are referring only to unwanted sexual activity. As I have mentioned earlier, that should have been included in the resolution, or at the very least mentioned in your opening of Round 1 for the contender to be aware of before they accept the debate. Otherwise the resolution as it is stated stands. Because it was left unsaid, it was therefore open to my interpretation which I have supported with both the official definition that you agreed upon, as well as a cited relevant example. Pro states, "What the United States considers statuatory rape and molestation has no relevance to your claims that molesting blind orphans is cool(and I do mean blind, not visually impaired as in your example)." -- Actually what the United States considers molestation has everything to do with my argument and my position in this debate. And why you insist that I support the molestation of a BLIND orphan is beyond me. In my example, I chose to make the male wear glasses - not blind, but that is irrelevant; I could have used any example that made him somehow handicapped. For instance I could have deemed him dyslexic, visually impaired, missing a toe, a sufferer of heart murmurs, or not speak English while live in the U.S. (yes, not being able to speak the language that is native to the country you're in is considered a handicap... therefore the one who posesses a handicap is handicapped - the word in the debate topic). Anyway, as I have said, you do not have the ability or should I say the right to claim what kind of handicapped you "meant" by the topic of debate. And again if you wanted to specify that handicap, you should have done so in the resolution or at the very least in the opening of Round 1. Thus I disagree with you when you say, "your burden of proof now is to prove that subjecting a blind orphan to unwanted sexual activity is cool." I'm also glad we agree on the definition of cool here. CONCLUSION: The resolution of this debate states molesting handicapped orphans is cool. If two sets of guys (I'm just covering all my bases in terms of semantics) aged 15, with separate minor handicaps, such as one of them wearing glasses and the other being dyslexic (HANDICAPPED), and both of whom had parents who were deceased (ORPHANS) each engaged in consensual sexual activity with 17 year old girls (MOLESTATION), and this behavior was accepted and even respected in their social circle (COOL), then I have won this debate. There is no way that Con can win this debate. In my example, more than one handicapped orphan engaged in sex that is technically considered molestation and their behavior was cool, or admissable/respected by their social circle. Even if you/Con disagree that it's cool, according to the definition of cool that my opponent and I have agreed upon, it is. Thaanks for the debate, Miss.