From a debate judging standpoint, LM should win the "Cousins and beer nuts" debate.

First, I'd like to point out that my opponent has ignored my refutation of his "short term happiness" argument. Second, I'd like to point out that the argument my opponent is attempting to defend simply cannot be defended. Jonas urged that methods of death for bear nuts and cousins were swifter than the methods of death for colon cancer, but as I've pointed, that isn't really the case. In fact, due vagueness, bear nuts and cousins can lead to far more torturous and pain inducing deaths. Especially cousins, given that we're taking into account an actual person who can control any method of death. Thus, the methods of torturous deaths are endless. A cousin could simply kill someone over the period of weeks or months while excruciatingly torturing this someone. Of course, all of this is besides the point due to the fact that (as I pointed out), Jonas was directly associating cousins and bear nuts with death. When you think of cousins and bear nuts, do you think of either as being a tool of death? No, because they are rarely associating as be a means to induce death, whereas colon cancer is always associated as being a means of death. Thus, my reasoning as to why Jonas's argument suffered from the post hoc fallacy. Furthermore, I suggested Jonas had conceded to my argument for two reasons: 1) I stated he conceded to it and he raised no objections to this as he should have in his final round . Thus, logically, it is to be taken as a concession in the realm of debate. 2) More importantly, observe his words in round one: "Colon cancer infects the anus and kills people." This was his only reason for suggesting Colon cancer was bad in R1. Because quite simply, it killed people. Turning around and saying that cousins and bear nuts provide the same benefits that I pointed out merely negates his own argument. Based on his round one logic, this would be taken as him suggesting that Cousins and bear nuts are equal to colon cancer. Thus, even if you don't believe I did my job in the debate, you cannot ignore the fact that Jonas negated the resolution on his own. At the very most, my opponent could attempt to argue that my opponent changed his argument, but not only is this very abusive, but without clarification, it must be noted that Jonas has simply contradicted himself, thus even further reason to dismiss his case and vote in favor of mine. Next, my opponent attempts to argue that I should not win the debate since I did not restate my objectives, but do I really need to do this? I understand that restating the main points is helpful for the judges for the sake of clarification, but in no way should me not doing this be considered a reason to vote against me. What my opponent is suggesting is none other than the style over substance fallacy at work. My arguments are in the debate and that's all that matters. Plus, given that we're online rather than in person, a judge can literally glance back over what was said rather than rely on a flow pad, thus even less reason to be obligated to provide a brief overview. Furthermore, even if you buy into my opponent's argument that I should lose the debate because I did not provide a brief overview, I must regretfully (for my opponent's sake) point out that I DID indeed provide a brief overview of the debate. Let us refer back to my R2: "At any rate, my opponent concedes to the benefits which I insinuated as being linked to death in round 1. This is shown in that he did not address my analysis and that he attempted to suggest that cousins and beer nuts were superior since they could produce a quick and painless deaths. In round one, he advocated that the evil of death itself was what made bear nuts and cousins superior to colon cancer. Clearly, he conceded to his own argument being faulty. Nevertheless, his new argument is faulty as well (as I've shown above)." As we can see here, I tied up the debate in round 2 (which was done primarily because I anticipated my opponent's forfeit in round 3). My reason for not restating this in round 3 was simply that I suggested you EXTEND what was aid in the previous round. Thus, even though flawed, I fulfilled my opponent's condition. Finally, even taking my opponent's logic into consideration (about both of our responses being empty), the burden of proof belongs to the one who makes the claim, and it was no doubt Jonas who made the claim through starting that debate. Because he didn't fulfill his burden, that would make me the winner by default. Nonetheless though, I feel I've provided enough of a case to make me the winner for more reasons than that. Thus, taking all of the above considerations into account, I have shown that I should win the cousins and beer nuts when it comes down to a debate judging standpoint. Thanks for the debate. :D