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

[ Decency ] Con begins by providing that the term standard means: Something established by authority, custom, or general consent; however, note that THIS IS NOT THE DEFINITION WE HAVE AGREED UPON at the inception of this debate. Since Con cannot introduce a new definition in the final round, we must accept and go with the original agreed upon definition of standard, which instead reads: A rule or principle that is used for the basis of judgment. Keeping that in mind, my original point applies. I have maintained that there are standards for morality; however, a majority opinion should NOT be one of them. It would be fallacious to accept this faulty logic, and Con has not denied that reality. A more appropriate standard would have been logic itself, or perhaps the citation of a moral theory such as Utalitarinism. However, Con's only proposed standard was ad populum, which would be an inappropriate standard on the grounds that it is not logically acceptable. Again, Con cannot assert that custom is the appropriate moral standard; that is only another fallacy: APPEAL TO TRADITION. Again, Con is putting forth additional faulty logic which cannot be applicable to the standard of decency or this debate in general. So, because I have actual reasoning to support my beliefs, you absolutely cannot dismiss them as being indecent based on tradition or the number of people who may disagree with me. The ONLY way Con could have done this would have been to attack those beliefs and explain why they were indecent for reasons that did not prove fallacious. Because he has not done so, you cannot consider me indecent for the reasons he has cited. Furthermore, Con did not respond whatsoever to my point that even if my belief on one or two issues were immoral or indecent (they're not, but I digress), that this would not necessarily make me an indecent person in general. For instance, people are not perfect beings; everyone does something wrong or immoral at some point in their lives. Does that make one an inherently BAD person? No. Similarly, even if I did hold one or two indecent beliefs, I would not be an indecent person in general making Con's assertion again entirely fallacious. Remember: Con's point was that I supported abortion (which can be considered murder). Note that I am not for late-term abortion; in other words, I am not against the killing of a conscious fetus, meaning it is not murder by legal as well as scientific standards. And finally, keep in mind that what some people consider murder, other people see as being perfectly acceptable. For instance, technically implementation of the death penalty is murder; however, some people feel it is an acceptable choice the same way many people feel that abortion is a perfectly acceptable choice. My point here is that simply terminating life is not and cannot always be considered murder. This is a moot point. With all of these points in mind, Con has failed to prove that I am not a decent person. [ Good Head ] Con begins by asserting that a warpy head would be much more difficult to read (emotionally) than a non warpy head. I would tend to agree with that statement. However, this is entirely irrelevant, as Con has failed to prove that MY head is indeed warpy. In fact, he has done the opposite! Originally he cited my default DDO picture as being my head, which I denied and noted was actually a DRAWING of Johnny Depp's head. My opponent did not refute this, meaning he accepted that reality and thus could no longer bring up a warpy head argument. He also then cited another image of my head which he was indeed correct in establishing as my head. Because said head is not warpy or deformed in any way (physically) nor has Con argued as such, we must accept that my head is not warpy or deformed, so far making it stand that I indeed have a good head. Next Con has said that my head could only be considered if it had a protective bulletproof film over my eyes. He did not indicate why this would necessarily be good. For instance, such a film might not be see-through therefore inhibiting my sight which I would argue is not good. Moreover, if I were to have such a film, I would be very different from all other people who also do NOT have such a film. Con himself has said, "Difference is good, but only on a small scale. People with strange mutations, for example, are considered ugly and "deformed." In other words, if I did have such protection (including over the ears as Con has suggested), I would be considered NOT GOOD by Con's own standards. I rest my case on this point. Con has not proven that I do not have a good head. [ Head on Shoulders ] Con has given nothing sub stantial to prove that there is no read on my shoulders. First, in analyzing my analogy about food on a plate on a table, we can see that this same logic applies to the head on my shoulders. If there is food on a plate on a table, I would assert that the food is on the plate but ALSO on the table. Con has inquired about whether or not a head can also be considered on the ground since the head is on the shoulders; shoulders on torso; torso on legs; legs on feet; feet on ground; ground/shoes - etc. First! Note that CON HIMSELF SAYS: "My head is on my shoulders; my shoulders are on my torso..." In other words, Con has conceed to my point that one's head is on their shoulders!!! As if that were not enough (it just negated his entire point, but I'll continue for the sake of debate), I'll elaborate even further. Let me begin by saying it's ridiculous for Con to try and say that one's head can therefore be IN one's shoes, as being IN something has absolutely nothing to do with this debate (we're discussing about being ON something). Con himself acknowleges this disrepancy in noting in the famous, "I'm getting IN the plane" quote. In and on are not synonomous. That said, I'll argue that Con has manipulated my point in talking about a head being on the ground because he ignored my important argument about there being A connection (not several connections). I have said that my head is on my shoulders because it is connected via my neck. In Con's example, a head is connected to the ground not through one connection joining the two surfaces (AND SURFACE TOUCHING WAS PART OF CON'S PROVIDED DEFINITION OF 'ON'!) but through various parts of the body where no surfaces are touching or adjoined through a single link. Finally on this point, I can say that "I" am on the ground. Because "I" am not only a physical entity but a mental one as well... and the mental me resounds in my brain which is in my head... then technically speaking it is logically correct to say that a part of my head is on the ground (if you accept that *I* am on the ground). Nevertheless, I have trumped Con on this point on several accounts. He has not proven that my head is not on my shoulders. [ New Arguments ] I do not have to prove that there is constantly someone's head on my shoulders; only that there was a head on my shoulders (perhaps someone elses) at that time that I WROTE THAT STATEMENT. Plus, as I said, Con is making the assertion in this debate in countering something that has already been provided as a theory. Therefore it is his burden to prove that there WASN'T a head on my shoulders at that time, which he can't and hasn't. Saying, "Since she is capable of providing proof while I am not, it should be up to her to do so" is ridiculous. The fact is that not only isn't it my burden, but I CAN'T prove that I had a head on my shoulders at that time, and so we are both in the same boat... and this is a moot point. I've run out of characters, but note that Con did not even ATTEMPT to respond to my final argument. He has also not effectively refuted ANY of my original claims, meaning he has failed his burden in this debate. This is a clear win for the Pro : )