Charlie Sheen is more socially undesirable than Lindsey Lohan.

Thanks to my opponent for the excellent debate. A sidenote. I stated that my opponent cannot use new evidence in the last round of a debate. This does not mean that my opponent cannot refute claims. However, it is common courtesy and debate rules to not bring up new evidence at the end of a debate. The reason is that the opponent is not given enough space to adequately refute such claims. In theory if you can bring up evidence at the end, one can just troll the entire rounds, and then bring up a bunch of points at the end of the debate, in which the opponent would not have enough space to refute. Then the opponent can declare victory. First my opponent admits that Lindsay Lohan did the following: stole a necklace, DUI, endorsing Obama, slandering Sarah Palin and doing cocaine. It should be noted that my opponent did not in one instance refute that endorsing Obama and slandering Sarah Palin was a harmful act. It should also be noted that Lindsay Lohan did not have to face the consequences of her actions. But now we live in a world in which President Obama has bombed five countries, companies are able to obtain money through political connections under the guise of ‘stimulus money', unemployment in the United States is still high, and the debt is skyrocketing. He did not refute that Obama is bad for America. In fact, I actually stated that this is the worst action that Lindsay Lohan has done. I have addresses this in both rounds, yet PRO did not refute any of this. And yet, allowing a destructive man to become President has had a hampering effect of more than drugs can ever do. My opponent then goes onto state that ‘who takes there political cues from a convicted felon with multiple DUIs'. Apparently PRO does not realize the effects that celebrity's have on presidential campaigns. Politicians seek their endorsements for good reasons. Lindsay Lohan is an influential celebrity. So my opponent is incorrect stating that she faced the consequences of her antisocial behavior, as stated earlier since she did not face the consequence of slandering Palin and endorsing Obama. Next my opponent states that Lindsay Lohan faces the consequences of her actions. She got 35 days of house arrest for DUIs and stealing a necklace[2]. Big deal. She lives in a paradise of a house and it's not as if people can't visit her. She even hosted parties there. What a punishment. I bet most people would be willing to pay to have a punishment like that. My opponent then states that Charlie Sheen hasn't faced his consequences. I have already shown that he has faced many negative consequences including getting fired from a TV show and going to Rehab. Also note that Charlie Sheen has done victimless crimes. Lindsay Lohan has done crimes with victims so she deserved to get punished at a much worse bases then Charlie Sheen. This should be self-evident. We also seem to both agree that Charlie Sheen's crimes are less than Lindsay Lohan's. However, my opponent seems to believe that Charlie Sheen is worse since his crimes have a greater impact since he brought a "message that one can do whatever he or she wants and get away with it". Yet, this statement is meaningless since I have already demonstrated that Charlie Sheen has not gotten away with his "crimes". I also showed in the last round, that less people will be impacted by Charlie Sheen's behavior since he plays an unlikeable character on an adult show while Lindsay Lohan appeals to younger people and plays likable characters on family shows. This has also gone unrefuted. I already stated that celebrities behavior is likely to affect the behaviors of those watching them. My opponent next states that I make some semantic claims, but does not even bother to point them out. So the comment should be ignored. It is actually the Burden of Proof to show that Charlie Sheen is more socially undesirable then Lindsay Lohan, since PRO made the claim, and is instigator. In theory, it is impossible to figure out which person has caused more societal harm, since there is no hard data on it. We can only figure out which one has a probable cause of societal harm. However, due to Lindsay Lohan's appeal to young children who are more open to suggestion and easily persuaded, and since her magnitude of crimes are greater, it is more likely that she has a worse effect on society. Moreover Lindsay Lohan has stated the following: "How can you not like Britney Spears?" "Going clubbing is my way of relaxing or releasing a lot of stress. I don't feel that I should have to justify that part of my life. I don't know that I'm necessarily an addict." "When someone tells me not to do something, I'll do it more." "I'm not skinny for the wrong reasons. It's not because I'm bulimic or anorexic or doing drugs." Those quotes aren't exactly anti-drug and clean comments. The last quote is a lie as well. As I stated before, Charlie Sheen was just answering the questions. He told her how much he took. He's off drugs. His reference to ‘bi-winning' is in no way a reference to drug use. He has tested against drug use. He has stated he was proud of his drug use, but so what? Living a life of regret is a terrible way to view the world. It takes you backwards, it does not bring you forward. Even still, it is not an endorsement of drugs. As stated, Charlie Sheen is different. Not everyone could have lived the lifestyle of Charlie Sheen, and Charlie realizes that. My opponent then states that one "should do their own research on the matter". However, there is no reason they should for voting purposes. The winner of the debate is deterimined by who makes the better arguments, not whose side is necessarily correct. My opponent had three rounds to make a claim. There's no reason voters should do outside research when all the information necessary for voting is right here in the debate. My opponent states that Charlie Sheen faces no consequence for his latest "run". Alright, I have no idea what that even means. This should be ignored. As far as I'm concerned, he has done nothing illegal recently. He then posts a 12 minute video which I should not have to watch to understand what he is demonstrating. Sources are designed to prove that your statements are true, they aren't supposed to make the arguments for you. Again, my opponent then tells the audience to watch a Katie Couric video before voting. Why should they? The voters base their decisions based on who has the best arguments. Videos should not speak for the debater, only back claims. A comparison between Lohan and Charlie Sheen shows that Lohan has done more crimes, has more fans, and has fans that will be impacted the most. PRO has not demonstrated reasonably that Charlie Sheen has gotten away with his crimes. It's plain false. Charlie Sheen drug test shows that he is clean. Conclusion: PRO has many baseless claims. He has tried to shift his responsibility of argumentation by asking us to watch videos of Charlie Sheen. This is a spiteful tactic, since he is letting his sources do his work for him, when they are only a back up. He has not demonstrated that Charlie Sheen has caused more harm to society then Lindsay lohan has, since Charlie Sheen has cleaned up his act and has done less criminal acts. Lindsay Lohan has a fan based whose minds are more impressionable. Therefore I urge a vote for CON. Thanks again for the debate.