Under normal conditions, an average person CAN eat just one Lay's potato chip.

Yet again, my opponent fails to realize what the resolution is asking. As for the 'Under normal conditions' part, the reason that is in there is because, in a drastic situation like starvation, you are not going to be able to put that chip down. My opponent misinterprets that. My opponent continually makes the mistake of using the mentality of 'likely.' Although it is completly reasonable to believe it is likely that Bob will eat another chip, that is not the resolution. It is if he is CAPABLE of eating just one chip. And that he is. He then counters my addiction argument by saying people are addicted to WoW. I fail to see how that negates anything in the resolution. He just gave us a simple fact about WoW. He did nothing to tie it to potato chips, and thus I must ask this: Let's be realistic for a second: who in the audience watched High School Musical? There are no addicting chemicals in HSM2 are there? People watch this movie and hate it. That could be an equivelent argument with my opponent. WoW has no link to potato chips, nor did he prove that people are even PHYSICALLY addicted to it. Some things are addicting, some things aren't. Chips aren't. PLUS, I've already pre-countered that argument, which my opponent did not respond to. I said that there are other things a person can snack on. Why not pretzels, Cheetos, and Fritos? They're all good. Let's go on to his weird lettered list now. A. He says there is peer pressure, but he does not adequetly explain this. It is simply a two sentence argument asking a question. I will respond to the general idea of this argument. First, I don't know about any times that I, nor my friends, have been pressured to eat potato chips. Most people eat them by themselves, anyway. Even if they were, there are plently of other items to satisfy their crave. Peer pressure simply does not mean that they definatly are going to eat more than one potato chip. B. My opponent says that we are physically addicted to finishing what we started. He fails any proof of this argument and does not explain it at all. All he says is a general statement. Thus, I will say this: No to all of his questions, and no, you don't get addicted. Now they are equally valid arguments on both sides, and this argument is a wash. C. My opponent's last argument is just that they are appealing. ONCE AGAIN, just because it is likely, that does not mean he does not have the will-power to refuse that. Any human being capable of eating a potato chip is equally saying, 'no.' And again, if he really wants to eat something salty, he is perfectly capable of getting something else that is salty to eat. I win this debate because my opponent fails to realize what the resolution is asking, and thus cannot respond to my arguments. The resolution is asking if Bob is CAPABLE of eating one potato chip. CON fails to realize this and implements his own resolution, 'Under normal conditions, an average person is likely to eat more than one potato chip.' There is a world of difference between 'can' and 'likely.' Unfourtantly for my opponent, these worlds are the same, making his arguments moot. So, I will say the same thing as all other rounds: An average person CAN eat just one Lay's potato chip. My opponent presents no empiracal evidence nor logical reason why a person cannot eat just one. I have proved my opponent's interpretation wrong, and I see nothing but a PRO vote.