Proactiv is a terrible product.

While my opponent's case is telling, there were a few key mistakes that's going to ultimately cost her the entire debate from right here, even ignoring that there's a round three coming up. Why? Because my opponent practically concedes that my argument is true. But I'll get to that in a second. There's a few other things I'd like to talk about first. Again, her argument relies almost solely on second-hand witnesses. This isn't too accurate with details and is succeptable to misunderstandings. I am, however, a living, walking testemony to the effectiveness of the Proactiv product. This is going to be more reliable than any amount of second hand accounts that she has because I know exactly what happened, and all my details are accurate and truth. She only has what her friends have told her. Which would you trust more?Also, she gives a few links to reviews against Proactiv. But the only problem with this is she also goes out and concedes that there are reviews out there that are FOR Proactiv. At this point, she makes my job easier and I don't even have to go find the links. The fact that SHE CONCEDED that they exist is enough to make her links non-unique. There are links for and against Proactiv, so the links will inevitably not matter in this debate. Now, let's talk about her rebuttals. I'll italicize her specific wording."Over a week or two, her blemishes had seemed to diminish..."So, essentially, what you as the voter want to pull from this is that, essentially, my opponent concedes that Proactiv works. So, essentially, unless Proactiv kills someone, it really can't be seen as a terrible product. It does what it was designed to do, clear the human face of acne problems and blemishes. Anything else is just nit-picking. But in case you don't think it's just nit-picking, let's move on to another piece of her case.Proactiv was drying out her skin...Hold on. Did I say Proactiv worked for every single person? I'm pretty sure that I didn't. Deduct a conduct point from me if you feel it's necessary, but my opponent's grasping at straws in an attempt to get something to supplement her semi-sketchy argument in the first place. I do realize that Proactiv isn't perfect. But it does work. She even concedes that. As far as that matters, there isn't really much of an option but to vote con.And, as a little side note, the only other alternative to using Proactiv that my opponent suggests has so horrible of side-effects, I'm scared to even google up what they cause. So really, even if Proactiv is bad, which I don't believe, it's the best available option compared to the mysteriously horrible alternatives. So here is the second place to vote con. Now, onto the next point that I would like to point out to our voters.Proactiv can also cause other skin issues- increased blemishes...Wait, hold on. Didn't earlier, you say that when your friend used Proactiv there was a decrease in blemishes? Now I'm not a genius about debate, but this is what we debaters call a 'double bind'. It happens when your opponent contradicts themselves so badly that they're left with two horribly bad choices. I'll go ahead and list those two choices. You can either go with option A: that says that you claim that Proactiv increases blemishes. That seems good in theory, but since your second-hand accounts already rely on Proactiv DECREASING blemishes, it would undermine any truth value that they had. With those undermined and considered untrue by your own argument, you would have no offense. Thus, the voters would have no choice but to vote con. But, like a true gentleman, I give you another option for your very choosing. Option B: You concede that Proactiv decreases blemishes, which would make it a good product. That's a flat-out easy win for the con. So there you have it. Have fun!So this is exactly why you can vote con right here, regardless of what happens in round three: I'm the only one with accurate, unique offense. Her second hand accounts are untrue by her own arguments, her links are non-unique. And furthermore, she put herself in a double bind and contradicted herself so bad that no matter what route she takes, it results in a con vote.