Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenario's.

Alright, I will be continuing my two pronged argument and refuting my opponents in the process. First. My opponent appears to be under the impression that he only has to prove the resolution to a reasonable point. This is false as the resolution offers the obvious imperative, "will". If my opponent cannot prove the will part of this resolution then my opponent clearly does not fall under the resolution. Reasonably likely and will are not, in fact, the same thing. My opponent brings up a case E which states, "Logical-Master does not wake up at least once in 2-day span starting 2/19/08 at 12:19pm." He does this in order to rule a 100% chance of something under the resolution happening. However I have two points on this issue. 1. The resolution quite clearly states, "Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenario's." The phrase however, "does not wake up at least once" is not Logical-Master doing something, it is instead the absence of him doing anything. 2. Even if my opponent can somehow twist, "does not wake up at least once" to mean Logical-Master is indeed making an action there are still many scenario in which Logical-Master would be incapable of doing anything. a. Logical-master died before the two day span. This proves the resolution false as logical-master no longer exists and is incapable of doing anything. b. Logical-master fell into a lava pit halfway through the period before ever waking up or falling asleep. Thus he is once again incapable of doing either. c. Before the period began robots took over Logical-Master's mind and now control his debate.org account. Thus once again Logical-master is in fact incapable of doing anything. Until my opponent can prove without a doubt that logical master in fact has done 1 of the scenario's then the only possible answer to this question stands as, "Logical master probably will do one of the below listed scenarios" which falls outside of the resolution. 2. As I said in my last round, if you opponent can prove beyond a doubt that one of the scenario's are true then he must also accept the fact that scenario D is true. My opponent accepts this fact in his last speech and merely states that the resolution does not limit it to just one. He cites a few examples where a resolution would limit it to one such as, "I want only two cups" (this actually limits it to two....) "only one man showed up in tokyo" "there's only one woman for me" Sadly these can all be seen as redundant as the phrases "I want two cups" "One man showed up in tokyo" "there's one woman for me" all mean the same thing. Tacking the word only onto it simply stresses the fact that is already apparent. For instance if one were in a classroom and the teacher walked around on Halloween with a bag of candy saying, "Take one piece of candy." It would be at the point where a kid took two pieces of candy that she would begin to say, "Take one piece of candy only!" The fact that she said one in the first place means just that, one. Other examples, "Please shoot one man" does not mean at least one. "Jack asked for one pail" does not mean at least one. "Someone stole one dollar" does not insinuate that they may have stolen more. "She fed one pigeon" ..... "Logical-master will do one of the below listed scenarios" To say that he did more than one but it counts is like the little kid in my previous analogy reaching into the bag, grabbing two pieces, and saying, "I took one and then another one! I didn't break the rules!" When it call comes down to it my opponent has attempted to take two pieces of candy and justify it by saying exactly that, "He has fulfilled one of these. He has also fulfilled the other one." One is a number, it indicates a definite value. The only foreseeable way in which my opponent could win on this argument is if the resolution had said, "at least one" as it doesn't my opponent has lost. Much like the little kid who would be punished for attempting to steal the extra piece of candy my opponent must now be voted against for his attempt. Thank you for the round, I would ask that my opponent does not bring up new scenario's in his last speech as I would have no chance to respond. I have obviously payed my opponent this courtesy in my speech.