With 30 minutes of preparation, the user known as Kleptin could feasibly vanquish a grizzly bear

I will now respond to my opponent's counterpoints: 1. My opponent is arguing that my strength will be enough due to the beginning parameters. However, I point my opponent to the parameter itself. It clearly states that I am able to *bench* 180 pounds. http://wiki.answers.com... Operation of the bench press primarily exercises the chest muscles and to a much lower extent, the triceps, whereas the act of applying pressure around the trunk of a tree to climb it (the only possible way when the trunk is smooth) is primarily the use of the biceps. The 180 pound benching would be useful for something such as lifting a large piece of rock off of my shoulders, but not for climbing this particular type of tree. 2. My opponent then states that I can use my high quality hunting knife as leverage. However, this proposal is neither completely explained, nor practical. I am assuming that my opponent means that I can use the knife to puncture the tree and use it to lift myself up. The problem is that once I use the knife in such a fashion, I will indeed be able to propel myself up a little. Even if I jump and stab into the tree, I shall only be dangling a foot or so above ground. However, once I am hanging by one arm with the knife in the tree, what next? I can't climb any further because once I remove the knife from the tree, I will fall. In addition, I cannot apply my opponent's strategy by using the knife as a substitute branch because then, I will have no weapon and the bear will claw my feet off. Thus, the knife will not help either. 3. My opponent then points to the notion that I am a "master of tree climbing". I point my opponent to the wording of the parameter. It is stated that I am "well capable" of climbing a tree. Meaning, that I am simply capable of climbing trees. However, when there are physical limitations that prohibit the actual mechanism of tree climbing, then I am not liable for that. The climbing of a tree is usually done by climbing branches. My opponent, by choosing this particular battlezone, has presented me with a bunch of trees tree that cannot be climbed in that fashion. Thus, while I am capable of climbing a typical tree, this atypical situation in which tree climbing requires external tools and/or unnatural proficiency is simply not one where the stated parameter is useful. I may be well capable of climbing trees, but when the tree presented begins to deviate from the properties of a typical climbable tree, it is natural that my ability will decrease. It is my opponent who has set up a situation in which the agreed parameter does not aid me much. 4. My opponent states that I could simply ask a park guide or obtain a park map in order to find a climbable tree. However, he forgets the fourth condition that I set forth upon accepting this debate: "The 30 minutes of preparation occur without any external aid, is held within the fighting area, and can only involve parameters 2,3,4 and no other resources. " My opponent has provided me with a certain number of resources set forth in his parameters 2,3,and 4. I have clearly stated that in the 30 minutes of preparation, I can rely on no other resources than those stated in 2,3, and 4. Nowhere in my opponent's parameters 2,3,and 4 did he state that I have access to a lodge, to a guide, or to a map. My opponent the ends this section by asking the audience to dismiss my notion of a bear running much faster than a human. Let me then note that I am using that as part of my argument, saying that so long as I am on the ground and defenseless, the bear will catch up to me and kill me because I cannot outrun it. My opponent has no justification for asking that this point be dismissed, because it is indeed relevent. I must also state that the stamina my opponent refers to is subject to debate as part of the conditions that I set forth. Indeed, I can run a mile in five minutes, but after that one mile, the regular Kleptin's physical limitations take over. I can barely *walk* a mile without complaining. Just to have that noted for later on. =========================================================================== Utilizing biological weaknesses =========================================================================== My opponent has conceded to one point and then refers again to the issue of rattlesnakes. By my opponent's own admission, snakes are rare to find. In addition, my opponent's proposal that I simply wait in the lodgehouse until the bear leaves violates the usage of resources other than the ones stated in the parameters. However, the notion of waiting in the lodgehouse until the bear leaves is also a violation. The very resolution states that I am given 30 minutes of preparation in order to vanwuish the bear. If I decide to wait in a lodgehouse, or otherwise to be safe for longer than a period of 30 minutes, I would then have MORE time to prepare, and that is a direct violation of the resolution. My opponents suggestion would give me far too much time for further preparation so yes, there actually *is* a time limit. In the case of vital spots of the bear, I would rule out striking the bear through the skull because first, I would not be able to reach its head. Second, I would question my own ability to puncture the skull, which is thick and made of bone, (even with the good hunting knife, for fear of it becoming lodged and losing my weapon). As for slicing at the neck, I would also shy away from the notion because a frontal attack would be too risky. If it came down to hand-to-hand combat, I would simply be too hesitant because my entire body would be telling me to run. For the argument my opponent makes for playing dead, I ask my opponent to reread the source he provided. Nowhere in the article did it say that bears are "fooled" into thinking that the target is actually dead. In fact, the source says that "playing dead" lets the bear know that you are not a threat. It is the equivalent of showing deference or inferiority. In fact, there is no source that claims that playing dead fools the bear into actually thinking that you are dead. Every source uses the same language: Playing dead leads to eliminationt he notion that you are dangerous or a threat. http://www.environmentyukon.gov.yk.ca... http://www.arcticwebsite.com... http://askville.amazon.com... In addition, all of these sources say to avoid playing dead if you are being attacked and/or stalked. Wouldn't I be a fool to do otherwise? It wouldn't be feasible for me to follow advice that I personally will believe to be detrimental to my health, even if my opponent could prove otherwise. My opponent concludes by saying that an average man's muscle bulk would not be quite as I have exaggerated. THe video provided shows a rather healthy and robust man, whereas I have very spindly and muscle-less arms. By making this argument, my opponent does his argument little good, because the issue is not how much I exaggerate, but whether or not it is feasible for me to subdue the bear in the manner that my opponent set forth, and honestly, it simply is not. My opponent has listed many scenarios, none of which are feasible so far. In addition, there are a few points in last round that my opponent did not have the time to address. I look forward to seeing them answered in the next round. Thank you.