My Opponent Likes The Food of McDonald's

The following is my opponent's rebuttal (slightly edited): Let us assume my opponent it correct, like me pretend as if I am in fact Johnny Depp's BIGGEST fan. If I were his biggest fan, then I'd know nearly everything about, like, for instance I would know what restaurants Johnny Depp likes and dislikes. Since I am more qualified in determining this, (developing ethos), I'd like for you to believe me when I say that, "Johnny Depp does not like the food of McDonald's". Now let us look at the topic: The topic indicates that I, being his opponent, like the food of McDonald's. Therefore, since I am not Johnny Depp, as my opponent has conceded in his previous rebuttal, then, Johnny Depp has nothing to do with this debate. Therefore, whatever argument's that my opponent has made in regards to Johnny Depp ought to be dismissed from this debate in its entirety, and you vote CON. Arguments: He states, "Because my opponent has not provided even one argument that indicate that he dislikes the food of McDonald's, the audience must vote CON." My opponent has yet to do the converse of this action, he has not yet indicated that I in fact DO LIKE the food of McDonald's. The burden of proof is on his side, he is the one in favor of this topic, therefore I ask HIM to provide evidence to indicate that I DO like the food of McDonald's. The only argument's that my opponent has made thus far, were arguments assuming that I was Johnny Depp, he noticed that he was loosing so then he intentionally switched advocacy's, now he wants me to prove my disapproval. I don't have to PROVE my disapproval, all I have to do, and all I can do, is dismiss any claims that indicate that I like the food of McDonald's. All I can say is that, "I do not like the food of McDonald's", in light of the fact that my opponent has yet to disprove this claim, you should vote CON. Thank you for your time and consideration, - Protagoras of Abdera _____________________ |MY (POEJOE) ARGUMENTS| --------------------- My opponent has tried to confuse the audience through misinterpretation of my logic. Obviously, Johnny Depp's biggest fan would try to emulate his idol (this has not been disputed). Therefore, by proving that Johnny Depp enjoys McDonald's, we can safely assume that my opponent, Protagoras, also likes McDonald's. This was clearly stated in my equation in R2. However, my opponent still goes on to salvage an obviously lost debate. He states, "If I were his biggest fan, then... I would know what restaurants Johnny Depp likes and dislikes." Exactly. My opponent knows that Johnny Depp likes McDonald's. My opponent want to win this debate, so why wouldn't he lie? He knows Johnny Depp likes McDonald's, and in an attempt to emulate his idol, also enjoys McDoanld's. Like I've said, my logic is undeniable. He goes on with the assumption that I believed him to be Johnny Depp. However, rereading my second and third rounds, it is more than obvious that I believed him to be his biggest fan. It is his imagination that assumed that I believed him to be the man himself. Although my arguments may seem "silly" to some, the audience must vote for me because I've been the only one to introduce an argument whatsoever. Not only that, but my argument has never been disputed; it has only been twisted in its meaning for Protagoras' purposes in this debate. Again, Johnny Depp's biggest fan (not disputed) would want to emulate his idol Johnny Depp (not disputed). Johnny Depp likes the food of McDonald's because of his affiliation with the company (successfully counterargued). Therefore, my opponent likes the food of McDonald's (not even addressed by my opponent). VOTE PRO!!!