Cyber bullying isn't really that big of an issue

My opponent in the comments has numerous times bemoaned my calls to vote for conduct in favor of me. As such, I want to make it clear for the record that I leave the conduct point up to voter discretion like it always has been on this website. So I do not wish to force voters to vote a certain way. However I can and will control my responses to my opponent's arguments, and point out my opponent's flaws in conduct when possible. Now that I have clarified this, let's get into my second to last response.The first thing I would like to address is my opponent's lack of sources. Because we are now in the second to last round of debate and my opponent's next argument is in the final round, I would question why my opponent has not given a single source the whole debate? Is it because my opponent does not want to look up facts? I am not sure but I wish for the voters to keep this in mind.Now I will respond to my opponent's arguments."When I was capitalizing words in my arguments, I wasn't trying to yell at you, I was just trying to express each word so that you can get the point more clearly."Not too much here but when you YELL, you yell. Because all I have is words, I have to assume that all caps means putting emphasis on every letter, thus the yelling. You were not over emphasizing so yelling seemed to me to fit the description of your behavior."There are VERY FEW people who honestly have the "mental ability" to be not able to withstand the harassment of bullies."You can say this, but without evidence, you cannot prove it. I provided evidence that many people in the UK cannot even cope with cyberbullies, so I have a source."As I said before, most people just learn to live with cyber bullying. Besides, the people with little "mental capability" are just little kids. Not even middle schoolers. Mostly just eight or nine year olds. And they shouldn't even be using social media websites yet."Once again no sources. Not only that, but not all Cyberbully victims are in the 8-9 range. Adults are cyberbullied as well. So are you discriminating? Also it is not my opponent's call to be determining the age at which social media is appropriate."I also disagree that saying people have learned to just live with cyber bullying is an uneducated opinion because I used something magical called logical reasoning to be able to come to this conclusion."But in some cases, magical logic requires facts to support assumptions and presumptions made in the logic. Without those facts, the point is illogical."It's a common misconception that cyber bullying usually causes depression and unwanted feelings."Well it seems Reuters would disagree with you. "Jing Wang, Tonja Nansel and Ronald Iannotti of the NIH's National Institute of Child Health and Human Development analyzed data from an international survey from 2005/2006 that included 4,500 U.S. preteens and teens. They were asked specifically about feelings of depression, irritability, grouchiness and ability to concentrate, and also asked specifically if they had been hit, called names, shunned or sent negative messages via computer or cell phone -- or done any of these things to other people. "Unlike traditional bullying which usually involves a face-to-face confrontation, cyber victims may not see or identify their harasser," Iannotti's team wrote in the Journal of Adolescent Health. "As such, cyber victims may be more likely to feel isolated, dehumanized or helpless at the time of the attack." Physical and verbal bullies are often depressed themselves. But while there was little difference in depression between physical bullies and their targets, the NIH team found that cyber-bully victims reported significantly higher levels of depression than frequent bullies." http://www.reuters.com... So considering this evidence, my points are supported. My point that cyberbullies have more impact than face-to-face bullies is proved. My argument that cyberbully victims is proved. My point that face-to-face confrontations allow for easier resolution is proved. So my opponent is left with no source to prove their points, while I have a credible source to prove mine.Everything past the last quote from my opponent is negated by my evidence, and also is false because my opponent probably cannot prove it factually."First of all, hundreds and thousands of gamers play CS:GO. So your saying that hundreds of thousands of people need to get a life? YOU CYBER BULLY ;)"Uh poor conduct alert? Also why the wink? Why am I suddenly a Cyberbully? You discriminated on the ages of cyberbullied victims, which is worse than me discriminating CS:GO players who willingly choose to be jerks in that game. So I fail to see how I am the Cyberbully. Also if you have played CS:GO before, then wouldn't that mean you talk with Cyberbullies all the time? So doesn't that make you in league with Cyberbullies? There are just too many things wrong with this statement by Pro. "I think you either misunderstood what I meant or your just trying to make yourself win by twisting the meaning of what I was trying to say. Either way, what I meant was that I was just surprised that you've heard of leafyishere and you've actually watched his video. I'm not trying to attack your credibility, I was just shocked that you knew about him."Understood, but based on your previous all caps arguments against me, I could not take this argument from you in a joking manner. I was sure you meant that I was clearly talking about things I didn't know about. So yes I watch LeafyisHere and that should be that right? Why did you say Kapeesh?"Yes you actually did over exaggerate. He doesn't exactly ruin youtubers lives, he just provides them with some well deserved criticism for a GOOD reason. Here are some examples."Terrific! Sources from my opponent! Unfortunately each video has no synopsis so you expect us to watch all the videos? I don't have time for that. So why should these sources be considered higher than my quoted ones?"How in any way does this suggest that cyber bullies continue to harass the person until a person decides to "block off" him/her?"You are not those people who wanted to block contact. So do not act like you can question their line they draw. But to answer your question, the study simply found that Cyberbullying is worse than face-to-face bullying for the reason that one cannot ignore Cyberbullies all the time like one can with a real life bully. That was the point. Because I have evidence and you do not, once again, I must conclude that Pro does not have facts to back up their arguments."That's why a lot of cyber bullies mostly target immature little kids. Because their most likely to scream and cry rather a big hairy middle aged male."So now we have delved into stereotypes huh. This debate went downhill."WHAT. WHAT DO YOU THINK I AM. OF COURSE I'M SAD THAT THIS PEOPLE COMMIT SUICIDE. Besides, I haven't been "insensitive" to you at all."This yelling is what I consider insensitive. I just wanted an honest discussion. I seem to not be getting that. I'll take your word for it that you are sad that people commit suicide. I honestly apologize for ever questioning it."Ok, there are SOME major problems with what you just said right here."No there are not. Listen, the resolution is and I quote "Cyber bullying isn't really that big of an issue." That resolution when affirmed, means that Cyberbullying is not a big issue. Because my definition of Big in the beginning is "large in number or amount" If Pro admits that the internet is full of Cyberbullies, Pro concedes the resolution. This is because the initial resolution was poorly worded, and Pro never chose to fix it. So it is Pro's issue if Pro fails to uphold the resolution, not mine."Also, you pulled that sentence right out of my paragraph. You want to know what I said before this?"Actually I did something called responding to arguments in clumps. I had already responded to the argument on insensitivity and living with Cyberbullies, so I felt the need to also address that particular slip-up by Pro."So not only your saying false information, your also desperate to be able to counter my arguments BECAUSE you provided false information. 42 is exposed."Well I guess I'm exposed huh? I guess you all figured out I was a nifty debater huh? Listen, I didn't say anything false, I was making a semantics argument. Please note voters, semantics in this debate was never outlawed in the rules of the debate (because there were no rules). So all the arguments I am making are legitimate. I also have not provided a single bit of false info the whole debate. Everything that required a fact, has a fact. The voters can check me on this as they please.With that, I await my opponent's response.-42