Twenty Questions

"It seems that my opponent has presented some faulty information about the object being described. " I do not believe that I have presented any faulty information about the object being described. However, I shall refute your points. "1. My opponent claims that the object can be purchased from Wal-Mart or Target. " The object can be purchased from Wal-Mart or Target. Both of these stores sell tables, and the price of a table leg is included with the entire price of the table itself. "2. My opponent claims that at Wal-Mart and Target, the majority of these types of objects sell for no more than fifty dollars. " This is true. When I stated that my object was a table leg, I meant that the object is only one table leg. (Pretty self-explanatory) Thus, at least where I am from, most table legs individually sell for less than fifty dollars when calculating everything included with purchasing a complete table. "My opponent claims that at Wal-Mart or Target, the majority of table legs can be bought for under or exactly fifty dollars. " This is true, and I have already affirmed this. Remember that I am only speaking of one table leg, because I am only speaking of one object. "That 'new' claim might look somewhat unchanged at a first glance, but the last part is extremely important to my refutation. " I understand. However, I have already refuted both parts. "If we didn't have the first claim, it wouldn't make sense to assume that the object could be purchased at or under fifty dollars because we wouldn't know that the object was actually for sale in the first place- but we do. " I have already affirmed that tables, and, consequently, table legs, are sold at both Wal-Mart and Target. "Possibility 1. Assumed that the majority of table sets are at or under fifty dollars in order to guarantee that even at 99% of the price, the table legs wouldn't exceed fifty dollars. Doesn't work because: The majority of tables aren't at or under that price. [1] [2]" I believe that my opponent is confused. Remember, the object is a single table leg. I do not have to assume that a majority of table sets are at or under fifty dollars in order to guarantee that an individual table leg does not exceed fifty dollars. If you look at my opponent's first source, you can see that every single item listed on that page is under two hundred dollars (excluding one item). I bring up the term "two hundred dollars" because we can safely assume that the tables have four legs, and if each table leg can be at a maximum price of fifty dollars, then the table would be at least two hundred dollars. Since none of the tables (excluding one) exceed two hundred dollars, and by the fact that there is more to a table than just four table legs, we can assume that a table leg is under the price of fifty dollars (also substantiated by my opponent's source). My opponent's second source includes many sporting tables (such as ping pong tables, hockey tables, etc. ) that range from prices of several hundreds of dollars to even over a thousand dollars. However, my opponent must admit that most of the cost of these tables comes from such material as black tops, nets, steel supports, casters, pads, additional protection, durability for multiple function, play and storage positions, automatic scorers, specific surfaces, various accessories, balls, pucks, etc. Essentially, I gave my best guess at reasonably concluding whether or not a single table leg is worth fifty dollars or not. Mostly from what I have personally seen, as well as from my opponent's first source and questionability of his second, it is pretty clear that my affirmation of a table leg that costs fifty dollars maximum is reasonable. My opponent must remember the rule, "13. Only severe contradictions are considered. People may have different interpretations of a question. " My opponent's first source actually helped my argument, and his second is a little faulty in trying to prove his point. "In order for him to make these two claims, he must have either . .. " I have already made my point for the first possibility, but I shall make one more point out of my opponent's argument in the second possibility. If you look at my opponent's third source, most of the items on the webpage are less than two hundred dollars, which I have already discussed to prove my point. Several of the items over two hundred dollars are sets that include chairs and the like, so we can't assume that those legs are priced individually at over fifty dollars. One item priced over two hundred dollars is a mere lamp that obviously doesn't include table legs. I am completely ignoring my opponent's second possibility because he stated that all I have to do is affirm the first possibility or the second. I have already affirmed the first, but I made a comment about the third source that backed up my earlier claims. The truth is, my opponent did not show Pro to be contradictory in the answers to his questions. This is my last round of refutation, so I will be unable to respond to my opponent. I have proven that I have not been contradictory, and I have also refuted three of my opponent's sources. I thank my opponent for the debate. Thank you.