Ronald McDonald is a Bad mascot for McDonalds

In response to my opponent's second round, he first said: "I'm assuming that McDonald's influences for keeping the Clown mascot despite the evidence of phobia, is that they must think that the money is would cost to change a mascot for a multi-billion dollar company, far outweighs appealing to people who fear clowns." REBUTTAL: My opponent has failed to provide any evidence to support that theory, and I think it should be relatively easy for a ‘multi-billion dollar' company to be able to afford to change a mascot. Evidence I know that it should easy and affordable to replace Ronald is that Ronald McDonald is already barely used in relation to any of McDonald products. I searched through the about McDonald's website, located at: http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com... And I couldn't find anything about Ronald McDonald on it at all. It seemed that McDonald's is more interested in using its company logo rather its own mascot. So because of the company's rare use of Ronald McDonald suggests that the company should be able to afford replacing or ending its mascot very well. Even if anyone was to find anything on Ronald McDonald on that website I doubt it would be enough to suggest Ronald McDonald is used enough. My opponent then went on to say: "What Ronald represents to the company (again, I'm guessing the company's motives) is their original idea of an affordable family-friendly restaurant, rather than what it is today. Even if the Coulrophobic crowd thinks otherwise. To put in my own opinion, i am going to trust that if McDonald's knew that Ronald was so unfavored by customers that it was costing it profits to the point where changing their mascot, they would. McDonald's probably has the best financial advisers in the world." REBUTTAL: My point is that removing this Coulrophobic problem should increase McDonald's profits and reputation. It's always better to make Improvements and I'm sure we can all agree on that. In response to my opponent's response on reputation being ridiculed fact, he said: "To move on to number 2, considering that McDonald's is a Global company. Known for supposedly causing obesity, trashing lands, killing cows, and even has documentaries criticizing it (i.e. Morgan Spurlock's "Super-size Me"). So i feel that Ronald's role in McDonald's reputation is small compared to what a listed." REBUTTAL: Yet again I reuse my previous argument, it's always better to make Improvements. My opponent is still not providing any information that Ronald McDonald is ‘good' but only acceptable. Finally my opponent said: "The criticisms of McDonald's are due to it's actions, Ronald (since he represents McDonald's) is inevitably going to be the symbol of this. Changing him does not seem likely to change consequences of McDonald's past actions, it would probably just cost them more money, and effort." REBUTTAL: Indeed changing Ronald would not really change consequences of McDonald's past actions like causing obesity, trashing lands and killing so many cows, but this debate is not about "McDonald's past actions". This debate is about removing Ronald McDonald or not. My argument is that removing Ronald will be good for McDonalds. I will end my second round there and I don't feel need to state any more anti-Ronald McDonald facts right now.