The over indulgence in our entertainment negatively affects how we view & treat each other.

Pro is apparently trying to turn to technicalities to assist him in winning this debate, if that’s how he wants to play it then allow me to point out a few: In round one I stated that the word “over” in the resolution was part of the debate not an assumption in it. Pro did not address it in the following round and continued with an argument that makes this assumption. Technically this is a concession, thus “over” is not part of the resolution being debated. Even if you don’t buy that point (which is not necessary), Pro still has not affirmed his own resolution. He has done nothing but shown two examples of the worst that can happen as the eventual result of “overindulgence” in entertainment. Since the resolution states that “the overindulgence in entertainment negatively affects how we view and treat each other” it was Pros responsibility to show how the bad outweighs the good to make the overall effect negative. Yet Pro has completely failed to acknowledge my counter argument that shows the positive sides of overindulgence, and failed to show how his examples even compare in terms of how many of us are affected by it. Also in order for “overindulgence” to negatively affect how we view and treat each other people must first be overindulged to begin with. If I am showing how people are not nearly as indulged as Pro suggests and Pro does not acknowledge those points or provide a valid refutation, then he has essentially conceded those argumentative points and therefore failed to show that people are overindulged in the first place. So even if his argument is correct he still has not met his burden of proof. Pros argument centers on how overindulgence in entertainment is bad. This is not the debate. We are debating what is caused by it. Most of Pros case is completely irrelevant and is essentially an argument with a straw man. Of course overindulgence is bad, that is why it is called overindulgence. Of course the rioting and treatment of the LeBron fan was bad, what caused it is a completely different argument, one which Pro has hardly made. Instead he attacks me saying I support this behavior which I clearly do not. The Powers That Be Pro mentions that he gave 3 examples in this debate, he is apparently including his exhibit C. Yet the video did not play and even if it did it would not matter because this is a debate, Pro must explain his example. Yet all Pro has offered is Howard Beale’s one sentence explanation of it. That is not an argument. Pro also claims that the Government controls what we think and consume. How does Pro explain this? Is the government controlling my thoughts as I am writing this rebuttal? Did the government control my decision to order fried chicken wings earlier today? I would watch Pros video but since he did not explain what the point it makes is, it is not an argument. It is Pros responsibility to explain his arguments, not show videos to make them for him. Exhibit A Pro continues with his censorship argument while he has still not acknowledged my point that the LeBron fan was not being censored. The jersey he was wearing was not the reason he was escorted out. This whole thing happened because of the commotion which he caused, and was making worse. Pro has no proof of what caused the commotion to get to that point, yet he bases his entire argument on it. Pro more importantly ignores my case that elements of human nature lead to that commotion getting out of hand more so then overindulgence entertainment. Pro makes a point that the jersey must stir up bitter emotions for it to be considered in the first place, which is true and in fact common sense. This is what makes his choice disrespectful. His jersey is basically telling the people around him to “go **** themselves”. This is the point where that bitterness turns into what it did. That is the point where the situation went beyond indulgence in entertainment. Exhibit B Pro makes much the same argument for the rioting. Yes hockey did start the riots, but what they turned into went beyond entertainment. People see other people flipping cars and they want to join in, they see chaos and it becomes an opportunity to break windows and steel things with little chance of getting caught. At that point the hockey is long forgotten. Pro states that the London and Vancouver Riots are “polar opposites in their reasoning”. Yes they were, yet the result is exactly the same. This just proves my case that the riots are not the result of entertainment, but rather human nature. People will riot if they have a reason to and if there is insufficient means to stop it. Pro still refers to the status quo and weather we should accept it. I am not nor have I ever stated that we should accept it. This debate is not about weather we should accept anything, it is about what causes and results from it. Pro is mixing two completely different arguments, one of which has nothing to do with the resolution. Counter Argument I am not quite sure if this is supposed to be a rebuttal to my counter argument, if so it fails miserably as it does not address one point I made. It just reiterates the same argument he has been trying to make throughout this debate. Pros conclusion “Con is in denial, uninformed, delusional, hypocritical, intolerant & immature.” I’d like to thank Pro for attacking me personally, granting me easy conduct points. Conclusion I certainly agree that overindulgence in entertainment is bad. That is why it is called overindulgence. Yet Pros case that it negatively affects how we view and treat each other fails as he has only shown 2 examples of the worst possible scenarios while ignoring my counter argument that much more common good is caused by it. It would be impossible for voters to justify his argument being more convincing when he fails to acknowledge a counter that shows his resolution to be negated. And even if you agree with his side of the resolution, his arguments were very difficult to understand and the only thing convincing about them were his videos.