Deaf people have better sight than Hearing people does.

It's time to D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-uel! First, it must be noted that my opponent COMPLETELY dropped my argument which concerned the usage of the word "does" as shown in the resolution. As I had pointed out, this argument was a clincher for this debate as if it is to be accepted, then the resolution MUST be recognized as impossible, hence winning me the debate automatically. Second, my opponent responds to my second argument by suggesting that he didn't mean to suggest ALL deaf people. Ladies and gentleman, we must keep in mind that my opponent provided ABSOLUTELY NO CLARIFICATION in round 1. For that matter, he gave NO ARGUMENTS, thus gave me permission to determine the direction this debate would go in. Furthermore, even to pacify my opponent by letting this unjustified clarification slide, his argument is still erroneous. He says he is only referring to the deaf people who can see, but if we compare a near/far sighted (or any other form of eye impairment) deaf individual to a non-deaf individual with nigh perfect vision, it is quite clear that ALL deaf people who can see are not superior to all non-deaf people who can see. In response to this claim: "Hearing people really don't depend on their eye sights that much compare to Deaf people." . . . I will say that just because hearing people don't depend on their eye sights as much as deaf people, it doesn't lead us to the conclusion that non-hearing people have better eye sight. In other words, this is non sequitur. To elaborate, lets say two guys purchase two of the same cars from an automobile shop. The first guy uses his car daily whereas the second guy uses his car twice a week. By my opponent's logic, the first guy would have a better car, despite that there's nothing inherently superior within the first guy's car. Now, if my opponent meant to suggest that the lack of a certain sense made the other senses stronger, then this idea does more harm than good to his argument. For instance, if a non-deaf individual loses his/her sense of smell, touch, or taste, his/her other senses would increase. This would suggest that both deaf and non-deaf people can potentially have equal sight, which is contrary to my opponent's case, considering that he is advocating that there is no equality.. In the next round, I'd like my opponent to expound on the following claim: "Hearing people depends on hearing things and always depending on what they hear not what they see." What is there to suggest that hearing people ALWAYS depend on what they hear rather than what they see? Furthermore, the fact that there are many visual learners within the non-deaf population completely disproves this baseless assertion. In response to: " How many of you guys are hearing and does not depend on the sights to know what's going on?" It would appear my opponent was more interested in a discussion than a debate. Unfortunately, questions such as this one will have to wait until after this debate. In the comments section perhaps? At any rate, I will answer each. Personally, I utilize my sight as well as my hearing. In fact, when I play games such as Dance Dance Revolution, I strongly rely on my eye sight to get high scores. >>>Do you just listen to everything to see if you can figure out what's going on?>>> No, I listen, smell, hear, feel, and taste my environment to know what's going on. >>>Or you always look around trying to figure it out?>>> As suggested above, I don't do one or the other. Rather, I utilize all of my senses. I now await round 3.