This house would ban WWE

Well, first of all, I am going to present some words, to make the insubstantiality of your definition. Then, with your proposed yardstick and an alternative burden of proof, let me start the debate. Definition/Burden of Proof Well, the definition which you have provided was literally good. But, my objection is with the burden of proof set by you. All those burdens of proof are not something to debate against. They have been given from an absolutely different and conservative viewpoint. In addition to that, it is a part of your definition. So, I am challenging your definition on truism ground. At first, you need to understand when or why a thing should be banned. We can urge upon to ban a thing only then when it imposes an extreme threat to our personal, social or cultural life, I repeat, extreme threat. So, in order to prove WWE to be something to be banned, you have to construct the case that it does impose such kind of threat to us. And on that motion, the burden of proof for me will be to show that WWE is not seriously harmful enough that it has to be banned. Prior to all these things, the burdens of proof you have set are inapplicable in terms of almost everything in this world. Your burdens of proof were such like these:1. If I want to stop today's motion from being passed, I will have to show that it will never cause any life risk.2. It will never give any chance to harm anyone.3. No one will try this at home, school or anywhere.4. It has more good effects than drawbacks on the viewers. Now, let me be straightforward in this aspect.1. How many things will be remaining there if you filtrate with these criteria? Even, the thing which you are typing with right now is also causing some serious long-lasting life risks for you. Now for that, will you ban it? You may do, for you have attempted to do that with WWE.2. Which thing is 100% free from harms? Now, if I ban all those things considering from this aspect, there will, most probably, be no one remaining except you! !!3. Have you ever watched those spectacular and breathtaking Hollywood action movies? In those movies, some scenes are often shown which may be detrimental for people’s physique or something else. For that, are you going to ban Hollywood? Maybe, yes! !!4. Why is the question of good effects and drawbacks coming here? WWE stands for World Wrestling Entertainment, you may know or not. Now since this is mere an entertainment medium, there may not be many good effects of it, just like your so called Facebook or Clash Of Clans. Ban those at first, and then do it in case of WWE! !! These are the reasons for which I had no other option but to challenge your arrogant and hilarious stance. YardstickYou have already shown the yardsticks, so no more necessity with that. Now, let me enter the rebuttal section. Rebuttal1. Health:Well, the wrestlers do not possess so little energy like you or I, do they? You may check out this link some greater knowledge about that. They don't often fall in health problems like 10-20 other people. You have to keep it in your mind that they are someone exceptional. And as you saaid, there is no example yet of being crippled, as far as I know. I don't know if this is going to happen in the future or not. Why do the spectators want to be like them? They have already been given proper caution, haven't they? Check out see! Even after them, if somebody like us do it, WWE should not be responsible, should it? The wrestlers eat heavy junk food, so what? Are you trying to mark a full stop in their eating by banning WWE? How hilarious! ! And the wrestlers have never been attacked with diseases like those you had said. We have many to learn, one more video, you can check it out ;.2. Hyperness:Now in this section, we have almost the similar words we had in the previous one. Well, if we you or I can learn something to defense ourselves by watching WWE, then what should be the problem? Suppose, today you have fallen in an assault, on that case, this lesson may save you well and fine. You may see it ;.3. Clashing:This may answer your question ;, in lieu of me.4. Morality:Seems that WWE itself is responsible for all the crimes and mischiefs occuring in the world. If that was the ultimate fact, banning WWE would be a good decisioon. But since the fact is not really like this, you cannot really say this. Morality is also there, if you have any confusion, go to . http://whatculture.com...;.That's all from here now on. Constructive Now, if you are a WWE wrestler, you are getting your health in such a position that it cannot but get fit. So, it is doing that automatically. And more to that, those wrestlers have found their earnings in agreat extent in WWE. You may go to ;. WWE often teach you the lesson of protecting yourself from others. And in this world, this is very important,isn't it? . https://vimeo.com...;, there is it. Every year, people after people are spending thier money for watching WWE. Go . http://corporate.wwe.com...;. Watch this. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . All them are spending money worthlessly? How is it possible? You can also go to ;. Hopefully, that's all for today. See you in the next round. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. The resolution is negated! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! !