There are 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street.

CON accuses me of attempting to get out of his rules by suggesting he did not attempt to prove his side of the resolution, but this is the straw man fallacy. In round one, this was my reason for why I insinuated that I didn't necessarily have to abide by CON's rules: ". . . the resolution is not phrased in a way that requires it to be bounded to rules my opponent creates. " Because the resolution is not phrased in a way that would require me to abide by any rules which CON creates, I do not have to abide by them in order to participate in this debate. CON then suggest that there is no way he can prove there aren't five logical ways of dying. Whether or not I provide 5 logical ways of death is besides the point; it is his job to show that there are merely 0-4 logical ways of dying while crossing the street. In his opening argument, he could have easily listed a maximum of 4 logical ways of death while advocating that there cannot possibly be anymore. Either that, or he could have shown there are no logical means of dying while crossing the street. It is CON's job to have a case rather than merely rely on providing objections to mine. Even if CON proves that my 5 ways of death are illogical, he will still not have fulfilled his burden which is to prove that there are not 5 logical ways of dying WCTS. As for the other point, refer back to what I said concerning the rules. Furthermore, the rule which he is citing applies to the CON. As you can see, I'm the PRO in this debate; even by my opponent's rules, I'm still justified in presenting more reasons in this round. As for only having one speech to argue, I covered this above. Re Gen. 1: I shall agree to accept the definitions which are provided here: . http://dictionary.reference.com... Re Gen. 2: First, CON doesn't even go by the definition in the source which he cites. CON must show how the definition even insinuates that logic merely relies on how likely a course of action is to occur. Second, going by his fallacious definition, one could suggest that it is illogical for CON to win the lottery after purchasing a lottery one lottery ticket. To be illogical, something must be proven impossible. Re Gen. 3: First, this is yet again something which CON's citation does not address. Second, lets take a look at what is provided in the same source he upholds: "Logic: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. " Correct or reliable inference is based on valid evidence. Global warming on the scale which scientist predict has yet to occur, but we don't infer it to be an illogical occurrence. This is due to the fact that we have evidence to support the notion of its feasibility. Re Gen. 4. I addressed this above. Re Gen. 5. My reason behind this is completely justified. Ladies and gentleman, direct your attention to CON's opening argument: "The challenge is for my opponent (Pro) to come up with five ways of dying while crossing the street. " - I did this. ". . . Con argues why they are not logical or do not meet up with the topic of debate in any way" - The CON then did this. "Then Pro argues why they do meet up with the topic of debate. " - Due to the word "then", I can only assume that the CON had wanted me to argue why they are logical after he presented reasons as to why they aren't. If there is anyone to blame, it is CON. Re Reason 1: The CON's rendering of "cross" is fallacious. Observe the following definitions: . http://dictionary.reference.com... The definitions imply nothing about being cemented to the pathway. Heck, going by CON's rendering, you could say that humans only cross a fraction of the street while walking. If an insect were to fly around a street, the insect would have to avoid intersecting the streets pathway. When an insect collides with a car that is moving in a perpendicular direction, the insect is intersecting the pathway of cars, and is therefore intersecting the street. However, if I were to go one step further, I could use a situation in which an insect such as a cricket or grasshopper decides to land on a street, observe the area, and then continuing flying or hopping, only to collide with a car moving in a perpendicular path. 2) The CON contends that when someone has a heart attack, it does not mean they will die. This is the red herring fallacy at work; whether or not a heart attack will always cause death is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that heart attacks CAN result in death. Second, the CON's explanation for why a heart attack cannot occur while crossing the street is completely erroneous as it relies purely on assumptions. He suggest that someone will simply go to the hospital if they are having a heart attack. 1) This is an assumption on the victim‘s mental capabilities. 2) Suppose a guy is eating in a diner and realizes that he is having a heart attack. While attempting to get to a hospital, the man could very well end up crossing a street in the process. By the time the he is in the process of crossing the street, it could very well be too late for him and death can feasibly occur. Re Reason 3-1: My refutations make cross applying pointless. Like before, being a victim in this situation can result in death. If the victim is shot (at close range) in the brain or heart via shotgun, the victim will die instantaneously. Re Reason 3-2: Red herring fallacy. Why the victim gets shot is about as relevant as what kind of shoes the victim is wearing . As long as it is a way of dying, it is applicable to this debate; we're talking about how deaths occur rather than why. Re Reason 4-1:See 3-1. Re Reason 4-2-A: CON is upholding the red herring fallacy. Why the death occurs (as in why the assassin takes someone down) has nothing to do with HOW the death can occur. Furthermore, an assassin can kill a normal individual. Sure, you could argue that it wasn't an assassination, but then I never said that the assassin in reason 4 was assassinating anyone, did I? In fact, I used the term kill. The CON doesn't explain his reasoning as to why being killed on the street would lead us to conclude that the killing had to occur inside a vehicle, so you can dismiss this notion entirely. Re Reason 4-2-B: The CON assumes that there cannot be a low chance of someone else witnessing a killing if the killing occurs in the street. This assumption may sound reasonable if we were to apply it to a society such as the US (which is yet again another assumption which the CON makes), but in a third world country where a police force is virtually corrupt or virtually non existent? No way! Not to mention that an assassin could kill at a time of the day in which he/she has little chance at being seen. Re Reason 5-1: See 3-1. Re Reason 5-2: Since the topic of debate doesn't specify any particular street, I am free to apply my reasons to any street whatsoever. The topic also doesn't specify on me having to provide scenarios that apply to all streets. Most importantly, the fact that my opponent didn't attempt to define the resolution in round 1 makes my course of action well justified. Furthermore, to pacify my opponent, death from falling debris doesn't merely need to apply to tall buildings in big cities. For instance, in my home town, there are plenty of tall buildings with structures that overlook the streets. In fact, one of the local KFCs has an enormous chicken bucket model on the top of it. If this chicken bucket model were to fall in the direction of the street, it could instantly kill anyone who was crossing the street. Finally, here is a sixth means at which one CAN feasibly die while crossing the street: . http://www.youtube.com... CON has yet to prove how my reasons cannot logically occur. Furthermore, he has yet to even address as to why there aren't 5 ways of dying while crossing the street period.