This house would ban WWE

FrameworkHello, there!!! Welcome once again, thanks for not following my path, that is the forfeiture. I am extremely sorry to all of the voters because I was busy in exam and so, I could not post. However, with no other words to spare, let's get started in the usual shape.BOP/Yardstick ClarificationIt is really very nice to see that you think I could go on with those hilarious ones. If you really think so, then according to the rules and regulations of a challenge debate, please show something exemplified on the Con, having gone on with those BOPs. You have shown some cross-arguments, but do the following. I am going to come on with the cross-fires later on. Now, my question to you is to show a thing which simultaneously: Will never cause any life risk, Will never give any chance to harm anyone & Will never be tried by anyone in schools, colleges or anyone else. Show only one thing which meets all these criteria, and then make tall talks.Now come to another point, that is posing extreme threat. Of course, a thing will be banned then when it poses extreme threat to either one of these three institutions: Personal or Social or Cultural life. Now, what was the ultimate fact about those movies that you movies? Watch out these movies.......These movies surely imposed some serious threats to those people's morality, that's why they were banned, the equation was easy and simple! The threats may not be extreme to you, but were something extreme to those!!Challenge ClarificationWhat does a challenge on "Truism" actually mean? It means your definition/BOP was in such an extreme position that one could not debate against. That's why I proposed some alternative BOPs for my side. And in addition to all these, after all, yardsticks are not a part of definition, that's why I went on with those yardsticks, hope you understand. I am not making it mysterious whatsoever!!! At the same time, it also looks like that you are running out of arguments, because you are doing the same ones again and again!! Why should not there be any rebuttal? Am I arising POOs? If I did that, that would be illegal, but POOs and rebuttals are not all the same, come on!Crossfire Considerations (1) It will never cause any life risk:Really and indeed, the turn does change. Do you know some wrestlers have already died out or seriously injured with WWE? If not, watch these..................Hopefully, you will get some lessons seeing these. WWE may cause little life risk, but never it causes life risk, that's something indefensible. (2) It will never give any chance to harm anyone: Frankly speaking, it is quite similar to the previous one, isn't it? Although they are mostly scripted, some matches just don't remain scripted, they become something more. You may look at.............. If you see these matches, that is well and fine. Now explain it to me how they have shooted this shot of bleeding before millions of spectators? Have you ever heard it from any spectator that, before them, some tricks have been played so that wrestlers bleed? That may happen in a drama, but not in WWE, my dear opponent!! (3) No one will try this at anywhere:It is never ever possible to make everybody aware, and so, those who will remain unaware will surely try these at home or school.Just watch!!!(4) Having more pros than Cons:Well, at least this is something that can be debated a bit. But, even after that, in order to win a debate, you have to neutralise all the BOPs simultaneously, so this, being good, does not matter at all. Again the reason, the remaining three were as extreme as they could be.Hopefully, you have understood why your BOPs were impossible to debate against and that is why the truism challenge should be valid. And another thing is that, you added some extreme words to all those BOPs, like never, no one or much. If these terms were not there, they would be debatable. But, they have made it completely hilarious. And I would rather advise you to learn some debate and definition strategies and the way to deal with the challenged ones. ConstructivesMy all arguments have remained unchallenged as they were. So, nothing more to be added to that. Hope, Pro will do that later.Debate DismissalI have already shown why that definition challenge was valid, and how ridiculous those BOPs were. Thereby, I have added mi initial ones. Therefore, on the rule of challenging, voters should be inclined to do the judgement properly. THE RESOLUTION MUST BE NEGATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!