Quote debate

No new quotes and new attacks on un-attacked quote/refutations. Refutations (1st Set) 1) Yes I did accept the fact that an argument was presented in the comments, but my opponent did not refute the attack I made to his attack, therefore we can still extend my quote because the refutation was left un-attacked. (http://www.debate.org...) (Please note the time of the post vs. time of any new arguments he may add to the comments section) 2) While not the main part of his speech, it was the climax, JFK attempted to connect with the people of Berlin, throughout his speech, and clearly, we can understand the purpose of the speech in this one line. Therefore while the whole speech behind the quote would provide for better knowledge, the quote can stand for itself and still carry the brunt of the speeches meaning. 3) Logic stands because both, nose and mouth, would be underwater. Furthermore, my opponent has still not showed why it is wrong to make fun of people, and seeing as he used a stand up comedian for a quote he obviously agrees insults are fine if they bring laughs. So it stands. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 4) I will also do so in Churchill debate. 5) Regardless of whether or not Stalin may have been evil his quote still can be put into context. It is different Stalin did not use his quotes to support his reign of terror, or at least the one I am using. Furthermore, quote is true when we look at the philosophy "Utilitarianism" and how this is exactly what is does. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (2nd Set) 1) The part about killing babies and abortion does not take matter because the quote is in the 1st person context (the baby) not the mother/parent. Furthermore regardless of whether people this birth is a curse the quote remains true, we have exchanged nothing for the possibility of everything. 2) As in the movie the Watchmen, this is not suppose to be funny, as my opponent agrees. His argument about clowns is obscure and he is avoiding the meat of the quote. The purpose of the quote is to show how people where (figurative) masks to mask their true feelings sometimes. And remember there was no actual attack on the quote, as a matter of fact my opponent agreed it wasn't funny, and that was the purpose of the quote to not be funny rather alerting. 3) Ah but alas individuals are Naive for buying Evian water, it is a notorious fact that these water companies steal water from the public, bottle and sell it, and the fact the population is buying their own water makes them naive. Also the amount is specified a bottle and as far as I am aware Evian does not make 100 gallon, it further specifies a tiny bottle, as well as the equivalent of 2 dollars. and finally in the comments section of this debate my opponent thought that this was a good quote, and how could he argue with something he finds good without becoming a hypocrite, therefore for the sake of his decency, we will ignore this entire argument and extend the quote. (Please note how George Carlin uses Evian to represent and industry, and the irony of the situation) (http://www.evian.com...) (http://www.debate.org...) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com...) 4) My opponent never says why the wise need to gain more knowledge. Furthermore my opponent is skewing the quote, the quote is meaning that you don't have to give the intelligent the advice, because its the dumb that need it more. Which face it is true, my opponents next statement is quite cynical, this sets a bad precedent, because this leads to only helping struggling people, and not paying attention to the stronger ones. First its untrue, because Cosby is not saying never to give advise to the wise, give it to the those who need it, secondly why is bad to educate people and ignore those who don't need to relearn things they know. Furthermore while one maybe wise in certain areas, he might not be in others, same goes for stupid individuals, therefore everybody would learn what they need know if we follow this mantra. 5) My opponent says we can't look to my quote because I didn't say how it would work, obviously I didn't because it is a quote. Also a history of both reflects the truth in the quote. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Onto my opponents quotes in the same order as I refuted mine. 1st set 1) Warrant is why something is true, therefore no warrant no truth. So we can still see how Kant does not back up what he says therefore we can count it. 2) A: Refer to Stalin argument, but still drop Nietzsche. B:that he had a great mind, and had great teachings, I showed how Nietzsche was insane in my link, therefore we can drop the quote prima face. C: All his works impacted Hitler in some way, refer to link. D: Decisions does not mean morality, and so the argument makes no sense. 3) In this debate we have been considering every quote as true, this is no exception, we can extend my factual arguments. This is merely an interpretation of the quote, and their was no link to the quote to warrant the interpretation, so please disregard 4) Refer back to argument of last round, if we extend His Churchill we extend mine. Also he refereed to himself so will I, i see failure as an opportunity for success, if I fail I put on a big, optimistic, smile and try, try again. Therefore my quote is true. 5) As my opponent tried to say with my Rorschach quote, I didn't find it funny, therefore the entire premise of his refutation falls because it wasn't funny. Also PETA cares about furs, leather so people do care. Also suede began with Lamb not cow, and it is only fair to assume lamb. 2nd set 1) I am white (or if I was black), I do no think he is Tiger woods, nor really have an appeal to him. Also if Barrack Obama appealed to both blacks and Whites he would have gotten their ballots however their is proof that he didn't receive neither every black ballot, or white ballot. Also his ratings are slipping meaning his is loosing appeal, not getting (Note quote is in future tense). http://thehill.com... 2) One can count up to a billion, so the quote makes no sense, also what if a man would couldn't count inherited a billion dollars? This would mean he couldn't count it but he would still have a billion dollars. 3) My opponent cites Optimists who have a happy outlook on all of life, therefore to say that we don't feel happy would lead one to conclude Optimists were not people. Seeing as they are the quote is not true. 4) How is their courage in purchasing groceries, sleeping, or brushing one's teeth, their is none. Hence to assume that Courage is taken to conduct these trivialities is absurd. 5) Their is compelling evidence to support the theory of evolution and that God did not make people (idiots), so he couldn't have practiced on idiots nor created school boards http://www.talkorigins.org... Thank you I urge a ballot in my favor