Swagger Should Be Banned

It seems my opponent has already presented his case; thus, I shall do the same. Based on my opponent's arguments, I am assuming he is referring to the Pokemon move, Swagger: . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...Anyhow, I shall begin and rebut my opponent's case:There is no way that anything that can take out a Pokemon that's got swagger, except perhaps a Pokemon that has more swagger. Swagger has already been defined above, yet my opponent uses swagger like this: ostentatious display of arrogance and conceit. . http://dictionary.reference.com...Because of this, I feel my opponent's argument should be considered invalid. However, I will go ahead and rebut this point. My opponent claims that a pokemon with swagger can't be taken down except by a pokemon with "more" swagger. It should be noted, however, that you really can't have more swagger in Pokemon anyhows. Besides, there are several ways you can counter an opponent with Swagger. Confusion wears off in 1-4 turns. You can use full heals and Yellow Flutes to confused pokemon to restore their status. You can give these Pokemon a Lum or Persim Berry before battle to allow the Pokemon to instantly recover from Confusion. Pokemon with the Own Tempo ability are completely immune to confusion, making Swagger's intended effect of confusion useless. (. http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...) ( . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(ability) )How does a Whimsicott have any swag at all? Again, my opponent completely misses the point here. I believe he is referring to the slang version of the word "swag", which is completely different from the move Swagger. Perhaps I should explain the idea behind the move Swagger to prove my point. As defined on the slang definition (see above), a pokemon can simply boister around. Again, the pokemon does not have to have "swag" (effectively rebutting my opponent's point) but it simply has to act like it does. The opponent, witnessing this, becomes very confused and angry from this display, causing it confusion and an attack boost, respectively. . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...This is unhealthy for Pokemon's target audience, as it promotes suicidal reactions. We do not want to promote suicidal intentions in small children. I am not quite sure how the use of Swagger correlates with suicidal intentions in small children. Again, a child can be defined as "a person between birth and full growth". My opponent uses the term small children, telling me that these children could be between 4-7 years of age. Again, are children really thinking about suicide when they are playing Pokemon? Probably not. These children are probably not even aware of what suicide is. Thus, this argument should be ruled out. Now, what if my opponent argues that he meant children not in this age group? Well, 3 year olds won't be playing Pokemon. If a child is above this age, they would probably learn about suicide in a meaningfull way from their parents. They will not want to do anything suicidal from seeing Pokemon attack itself. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Ban Swagger. It's the only way. It should now be clear that Swagger should not be banned, because of the above arguments. Pro states that banning swagger is the only way. I do not understand the meaning of this, and ask Pro to elaborate in the next round. -------------------------------------No argument from me. Why? I simply have to rebut every reason why Swagger should be banned, and that is all I need to win. Anyways, this should be an interesting debate. With that, I hand over the next round to Pro.