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

First of all I would like to point out how my opponent attempts to get out of my rules. He says that since (in my first speech) I don't prove how their are not five ways, than I get rid of my rules therefore he can too. This is RIDICULOUS. How am I supposed to say there aren't five ways until my opponent says any. The first speech was meant to set up the debate, no to begin arguing it. I made the rules to be as fair as possible and if you don't like them, you should not of accepted this debate. NOW that you have offered your (minimum) of five logical ways of dying, I can prove that YOUR five ways are not logical. Second of all, at the bottom of his last speech, he says that, "So far, these are my only five, but I'll present more in round 2. " --> I hate to be one of those people that are strict to these rules and everything, but there is a logical reason why I offered rule #1 of "The first speech is the ONLY speech that Con can offer ways of dying. ". .. I did this because if he offered more than 5 ways after his first round, then I would only have one speech to argue this (which would be my last round). I'm sorry but I offered the rules along with the debate and I assumed that if you accepted this debate, you accepted these rules (even though they are really like guidelines except for rule #1). The rest of your speeches are meant to back up the "ways of dying" already presented from speech 1. General arguments. .. 1. definition of logic From www. dictionary. com; Unabridged Dictionary "reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions" 2. In order to be logical, it must have a good chance of happening. This argument if fairly obvious. If someone were to tell me that someone died while crossing the street, what would be the possible ways that I would start thinking of? .. . that is the type of logic that I am looking for in these five "logical ways of dying while crossing the street. " 3. It can't be logical if it hasn't happened before. If we were arguing other occurrences that you could die from and that way has never happened, than I would consider this as not logical. .. But since we are arguing based off of an action that actually may cause death, you have to see that it must have already have been an occurrence of this type of death. 4. There must be 5 proven ways of dying (while crossing the street) at the end of the round for Pro to win. As the rules specify, you have to see that (since he only offered 5 ways of dying in his first speech) that all I have to do is prove that ONE of his ways is not logical in order to receive your vote (due to there not being 5 logical ways. ) 5. My opponent offers no explanation to his points. In other words, my opponent does not explain why these ways of dying are logical, he just says them. I will take them for what they are now but if this continues, I can only see a Con vote. Now let's move to his five ways offered in his first speech. .. Off of 1. .. (While flying across street, an insect can easily collide with the incredible force of a vehicle. This typically results in the deaths of many insects as well as the annoyance of people who wish to keep the exterior of their vehicles clean)---> 1. Only humans cross the street. It is logical to consider that bugs do not cross the street to "get to the other side, they simply fly around. So. .. basically it is logical to say that bugs die from cars but when they die they simply are not crossing the street, they may be ON THE STREET, but NOT crossing it. .. Throw this argument out of the round. Off of 2. .. (While crossing a street, it is within the realm of possibility for a human to have a heart attack that can result in death)----------> 1. Heart Attacks happen. Sure, it is logical to see why heart attacks can happen anywhere, I can concur with a heart attack. .. HOWEVER. .. 2. Heart attacks do not equal death. There is no fact brought up that if someone has a heart attack that they will die. When someone has a heart attack, that does not mean that they will die. .. FURTHERMORE. .. 3. If someone dies from a heart attack, they were not crossing the street anymore. If someone WERE to have a heart attack in the middle of the street (as I allow to happen from argument one), you will see that they will logically go to the hospital and will not die WHILE crossing the street, but more logically while they are on their way to the hospital or merely in the hospital and as my opponent tags the argument as "can result in death". .. what you have to see is that resulting in something is NOT while something is happening. Off of 3. .. (One can get shot at with a fire arm (a gun) while crossing the street)---------> 1. Cross-Apply my arguments 1, 2, and 3 from before as these arguments are similar. .. (basically) people get shot, shot does not equal death, death will not (logically) occur on the street. .. 2. (Philosophically speaking) There is no logical reasoning as to why this person was shot. When someone gets shot, there is incentive for it happening. (refer back to my "general" argument 5 of no explanation from my Pro) He has never explained why there is incentive to have someone be shot. If someone crosses the street, you could assume that there has been past life for that person, but if you look only to the topic of debate, you must assume that this person has no past life as we are only looking to the specific time of him crossing the street. We have no logical reasoning to explain the incentive of being shot. Off of 4. .. (While crossing the street, one can easily be killed by an assassin from behind who possesses a knife or has good knowledge of lethal martial arts techniques)--------------------> 1. Once again, Cross-Apply my arguments 2, and 3 from the heart attack argument as these arguments apply to number 4 as well. .. (basically) people may not die from getting attacked from an assassin, and logically speaking, this death will not occur on the street. .. 2. An assassin attacking you on the street is not logical. A. Assassin do not exist to kill random people. Sure, there are hit men, but I don't consider them assassin. Assassin are people that kill famous people and it is not logical to consider these people that die from crossing the street as famous. AND if they are killed on the street, it would be logical to consider them not as crossing it, but possibly them driving/riding in a car. B. If an assassin wanted to kill you, they wouldn't logically do this on the street. Simply put, assassin are smarter than your average criminal. They aren't going to just kill you as you cross the street, they will do it in a much less populated area where there was a less chance for someone to see it happen. Let's just say that you just found out that your friend died, do you really think that there is ANY chance that whoever told you that this happened would actually tell you that he/she was attacked by an assassin. It simply is not logical. Off of 5. .. (While crossing the street, one can easily be killed due to falling debris from that could come about from an falling building)---------> 1. Again, Cross-Apply Heart attack arguments. 2. This argument (unlogically) assumes that this person is in a big city. No where in this topic of debate does is say where the street is, it only says street. And logically speaking, most streets don't have any tall buildings capable of any falling debris. It doesn't make any sense why this street automatically is capable of having a building tall enough to kill a person IMMEDIATLY while crossing the street, which is what it takes to prove that this is a way to die WHILE crossing the street. In the end- Logically speaking, Pro has offered NO logical ways of dying while crossing the street.