TheLwerd is a decent human being with a good head on her shoulders.

Contention 1: Decency A standard is "something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example". Since there is no authority on morality, custom and general consent are the most important standards. It is customary to believe that most of my opponent's strongest beliefs are morally wrong -- and, indeed, that even her lifestyle is wrong -- and it is also generally agreed upon. In order to be decent, one must conform to most or nearly all of the most important standards. Homosexuality today is a very important standard, as is abortion. Since abortion is considered to be murder by the majority of people, my opponent would be considered to support murder. Since my opponent supports murder, she is clearly not respectable, and therefore not decent. The other two synonyms of "decent" do not seem to be applicable, but if they were, my opponent would not be them. ======== Contention 2: My Opponent's Head Humans have evolved to be able to read human emotions. A warpy head would be much more difficult to read. As a tall person, I can say that I am definitely made worse because of my inability to walk through low doorways without bending over. Difference is good, but only on a small scale. People with strange mutations, for example, are considered ugly and "deformed" has strong negative connotations. My opponent's head at least looks warpy; it is therefore not a good head. It is acceptable to assume that one of the two pictures I have submitted are actually my opponent's head. It is the most likely possibility: it is more likely to be her head than anyone else's. Therefore, both of my arguments still apply. And how much could her head really change over the years? How old could the photo be, considering the age of the person in the photo and the fact that my opponent is 22 years old? I have provided a picture that my opponent herself stated was a picture of her. How much more proof is needed? I would argue that Pro has the burden of proof, but let's not get into that. The place for that is here: (http://www.ddofans.com...) "He noted that my head is not good because I lack a protective film over my eyes; however, a simple biological description of the eye will prove otherwise" I was referring to a film that protects from dirt, and bullets, and the like. Have you even gotten dirt in your eye? I sure have. A person incapable of getting dirt in his or her eye would certainly be superior in that respect. Someone with bulletproof shields would be even better. And her hair is in the way. Ears should be protected by a strong forcefield, but this forcefield should let sound through. Hair is easy to get through, and it blocks out sound. Not good. I have no time to continue listing the physical defects on my opponent's head, but there are plenty of them. ======== Contention 3: Head and Shoulders My opponent is still going against the provided definition of "on". Additionally, her arguments by analogy are trying to use figurative definitions of "on", which go against the given definition. If I put food on a plate on the table, the food is not literally "on" the table, and any student of grammar could tell you this. Also, allow me to apply an argument ad absurdum to my opponent's definition. My head is on my shoulders; my shoulders are on my torso; my torso is on my legs; my legs are on my feet; my feet are on the ground. Therefore, my head is on the ground. But it is clearly not. Additionally, we could say that my feet are in my shoes, therefore my head must be in my shoes. But this is also ridiculous. There are other flawed and unacceptable definitions of "on" as well. For example, if you have ever flown, you were probably told to "get on the plane". As a great and wise man once said, "F**k you, I'm getting IN the plane!" ======== New Arguments A) The resolution is an absolute statement. Since my opponent is the one making the assertion, she must prove that she constantly has someone else's head on her shoulders. And as an additional note to the reader, I ask, do you seriously believe that my opponent has someone's head on her shoulders all the time? Or that she even had a head on her shoulders at the time of writing the statement in question? It is absurd to give the the burden of proof. I cannot possibly prove that my opponent did not have someone else's head on her shoulders at the time. Since she is capable of providing proof while I am not, it should be up to her to do so. B) This is unfalsifiable, and therefore not an acceptable claim. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) But even so, it cannot possibly true since my opponent failed to capitalize the phrase. And this goes against three of my definitions, all of which my opponent accepted. ======== Remember that I have to win only one of the three areas to be victorious. And let's be honest: I won all three areas. Epic win for Con! Vote for teh me!