wity fool is better than a foolish wit

Thanks for the refutation, it was a pleasure debating you. As a road map for voters, I will attack pro's refutations than go on to voting issues. 1. Br'er fox's example is to the topic, therefore it is relevant. My opponent states:",he was not a fool but transformed himself into a fool courtesy his corrupted objectives." This sentence contradicts himself because in the end Br'er fox committed a foolish wit and it taught us that some people don't really help, they just get in the way and rob you. (Example: Some pickpockets don't really help you pick up things, they steal stuff) 2. "a wit will do everything in a flawless manner but once he commits mistake he'll be termed as an foolish wit because he'll never be able to correct it thinking that he is right." My opponent has combined the two ideas of a witty fool and a foolish wit together therefore I will try to separate the two. "an foolish wit because he'll never be able to correct it." I believe I described in my contention 3 that a wit can be learned from thus reforming the flawed wit into a wise one. It's similar to disciplining a naughty student into a well behaved one. Therefore the word "never" cannot apply here because a wit is able to fix itself and a foolish wit can also be learned from thus it is better. This argument cannot stand because of the reason above. "thinking that he is right." A witty fool on the other hand cannot change because he is arrogant. If he could and reformed himself then he loses the qualifications of a witty person, thus this argument doesn't stand. 3. "okay , tell me does a wise person(witty fool) ever flaunts his knowledge??????? on the other hand an ostentatious person(foolish wit) always flaunts his so called acumen and is very good at blowing off his own trumpet ." Well, according to my definitions a wise guy (fool) does flaunt his knowledge because he's a fool and he is arrogant (cross apply this to my definition of fool). Arrogance (having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities) is a qualification for the fool to blow off his trumpet. Therefore a wise guy (witty fool) does flaunts his knowledge. My opponent isn't a witty fool he claims o be. Your insult is also clearly foul. Still, I will continue debate this cruel opponent rather than posting foul words about her profile. I'm used to debating formally because I'm on my school's speech & debate team, so I can't just get angry and explode with random arguments. I'm not a foolish wit but an ostentatious person. A foolish wit, please remember the word "foolish." A foolish person will mute himself realizing he's close to becoming an idiot and doesn't wish to progress further into making himself a witty fool. A foolish wit is more important than a witty fool because that foolish wit is to signal a person to realize he's on the borderline to become a witty fool. An example taken above was Br'er fox, by opponent stated ",he was not a fool but transformed himself into a fool,"she agrees that there is a line between foolish wit and witty fool through the word "transformed." 4. The hare and the tortoise story is a very interesting example, very well thought out. "hare being intelligent in racing but proved to be a fool int he end." This explanation supports my argument above regarding the borderline between foolish wit and witty fool. The hare committed a foolish wit first than became a witty fool. My opponent therefore supports that foolish wit comes first, then a witty fool. She has lost this argument. And in several interpretations there is an extension to the story, a part two. In part 2 the hare learns from his mistake, re-challenges the tortoise, and finishes first without stopping. All the animals congratulate the hare including the tortoise. This 2nd part of the fable also supports my argument saying a foolish wit can be learned from. If my opponent never exposed her acumen than there's no need to post again and she wouldn't had been so pettish in debate. All of my contentions and refutals stand so vote Con. Voting issues: 1. Con has proven his burden that a foolish wit is better than a witty fool. 2. My contention 2,4 has never been addressed by Pro, nor has she ever mentioned it. They all stand. Recap: Con 2: A wit has two outcomes: successful and foolish. Action is better than no action. Using a foolish wit can save a life, but being a witty fool that has both foolish and successful wit but never uses them cannot save a life and only gets in the way. con 4: A foolish wit can later be seen as a successful wit. For example the attempt to find immortality seemed foolish, but later it was seen as a successful because gunpowder was discovered. 3. A foolish wit has no impact if it is neutralized by a clever cover up. Therefore a foolish wit can be concealed. A foolish wit can be taken as a life lesson. Taking a foolish action contains the probability of saving a life, it is better than taking no action (witty fool) and absolutely allowing that person to die. 4. Con has attacked every argument posted by Pro. The majority of con's case and refutals stands. Con's challenge remains untouched in contention 2. 5. Pro refuted little of Con's rebuttals. Therefore whatever wasn't hit stands and are considered as voting issues. 6. Pro has contradicted herself on several occasions. In several cases she agreed with Con. Therefore I have proven that a foolish wit is better than a witty fool so vote Con. Thank you for reading this. And thank you for providing this debate Vrinda.