Floyd Mayweather is avoiding a fight with Manny Pacquiao

First I'd like to point out that while my opponent admitted that both of us cannot read Floyd's mind, neither of us can also predict the future. Hence, when you read something like "they will eventually fight", is just pure opinion. Con's first argument is that; "Floyd wants a clean fight. Even if Floyd's past has been colorful there's nothing wrong with wanting a clean fight even if it seems over the top to others. The fact that he has put such effort into assuring it's clean leads me to believe that he really does want a fight. " -- I believe when you want to fight someone, you'll do anything to make it happen. In this case, Floyd did just the opposite. Instead of making the negotiations easier and just fight, he ADDED an obstacle by accusing his opponent of cheating AND adding an invasive test that is not at all required by the governing sports commission. And I have to disagree that Floyd wants it to be a clean fight because how about his reported use of xylocaine? Pacquiao never has been linked to PEDs, before Floyd, yet Floyd was previously linked to xylocaine even before Pacquiao. Is it a fair and clean fight if Floyd can use xylocaine? Xylocaine isnt reportedly tested by Nevada commission, where Floyd has been fighting the last few years. While Pacquiao has been fighting in Nevada and Texas the last few years, and has been tested by both commissions. Mr. Mayweather says it best himself, ""I don't duck or dodge anyone. This is for the fans. This is for the Pacquiao fans too. Do I want the Pacquiao fight? Absolutely, if that is what the fans want. I want to give the fans what they want, but I have to take it one step at a time. I cannot overlook Victor Ortiz. [2]" - What is the worth of Mayweather's words? Whenever he says "I fight for the fans", He then turns around and says he fights for money and that the fans dont pay the bills (1), Floyd keeps on pointing at Pacquiao's 3 professional losses, the last of which happened 6 years ago, but in the same source provided by my opponent, Floyd says; "I also want to say congratulations to Victor Ortiz. It's not easy to bounce back from a crucial loss," Money May said. "He bounced back like a true champion. I take my hat off to him. " Which is which? A loss is a loss, no matter who the fighter. Floyd has a no loss record and so has nothing much to worry about from Manny. - While Floyd does have no losses professionally, it is of no importance to this debate. It doesnt matter how many losses you have, as long as you are willing to fight. A zero loss record is nothing new and not unique in boxing. My opponent also goes on to share that "Floyd has nothing much to worry about from Manny", this is purely the opinion of my opponent. It is his right to speculate that Floyd doesnt worry about Manny, just as it is my right to say that Floyd IS worried about Manny. The difference is how you prove your suspicions/speculations. I have provided videos and links to Floyd's past actions that lead us to believe he doesn't want to fight Manny. While my opponent just relies on Floyd's words, I talked about his past actions and behavior. Of course he will say he wont duck or doge anyone, of course he will say he will clean up boxing, of course he will say he wants a clean and fair fight. But what is he showing? What is his actions telling us? Using xylocaine fair? Weighing 2 pounds over weight against a lightweight (Marquez) fair! ? Having the veracity of accusing a lawmaker of cheating without any proof AND having the nerve to snub the very platform to prove his accusations fair? ? While it is not wrong to believe a person when he says something, we must also consider the source. Mayweather has NO credibility whatsoever to have us just "take his word for it". Remember this is the same guy who cannot go to a single day in court for a deposition because he says he is "busy with training" but can go out partying every night, burn 100 dollar bills in the process, punch bouncers and such. No, when Mayweather says something, we should take it, not with a grain, but a sack of salt. Thank you everyone for reading. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal of my arguments in rd 2. Source: 1 . http://www.youtube.com...