Thatcherism is a force for good

To be perfectly honest, I am quite displeased more or less obnoxious at what my opponent locked his horns towards. He seems very firm in his accusation of Ad Hom Conduct, along with defenses that are based on rhetoric alone, leaving evidence out of the window. I will defend my conduct fervently as my opponent strawmanned conduct in an attempt to gain a win. He cannot do this! He cannot misquote things and point fingers and expect a vote in his favor. But before I begin, I apologize to readers for all the misunderstanding that have arised from this debate. I will make it perfectly clear for my defence and why my opponents failed to fulfill his burden due to the lack of arguments and the constant repetitive reassertion that yields little substance. I would also like to extend my apologize to my opponent for not properly welcoming him to this website with open arms. Pro's Strawmanned Conduct AccusationPro said and I quote"I am also deeply offended by Con"s rude and irrelevant accusations when he calls me "fascist" and "anti-Semitic". I didn"t even mention Jews! How dare you use an Ad Hominem! "When? At what point and on what basis did I said you were anti semitic? Wasn't I clearly contesting your case? I expressed it perfectly clear that I was criticizing his argument, not his image. Here is a direct quote and the evidence that contradicts his claim(Please take note, he merely asserted it without evidence that I accused him of AntiSemiticism which I did not) "We have already passed Post World War period of which anti-semitism and Facsism are a thing of the past and here you came with an absurd claim similar to how Hitler deported and sterilized Gypsies because they were inferior and 'retarded' just like your argument. Your argument is full of fallacies. "The end justify the means(See bolded) . I said your argument was full of fallacious reasoning, how does that qualify as an Ad Hominem? . Moreover, I said that your claim was absurd not you or whatever's personal for that matter. Why would I attack someone I don't even know in the first place? . And I'm not done yet, I was also merely proposing an analogy about how similar claims of mental retardation on homeless were to that of claims that gypsies and jews were retarded. I did not attack your character, nor did I attack any personal trait you may hold. So Let me reassert again, I proposed an analogy that was clearly contesting your case, clearly rebutting your points with this case and nowhere did I mention your 'character' in this debate. It is beyond reasonable doubt. He cannot misrepresent my case and expect a win when evidence clearly points to the contrary. Pro accepted the easy way out, the conduct accusation merit is neil. Pro's cliffhanger caseCliffhanger case is defined as "A cliffhanger is a type of narrative or a plot device in which the end is curiously abrupt so that the main characters are left in a difficult situation without offering any resolution of conflicts. "(7. . http://literarydevices.net...).The end is curiously abrupt. For example, when we are about to reach the climax of a certain movie, the climax ends rather abruptly in a feeble attempt to extend it into a sequel. Similarly my opponent makes loads of claims, yet does not expand how or what. Pro makes arguments based on assertions with only his observation as evidence to support his case. He did not provide evidence for his case. In addition, Pro used my sources and attacks the credibility of misrepresentation, all of which does not prove that Thatcherism is a force for good. For example, Pro reference 121% poverty rates by explaining it in terms of absolute and relative poverty, yet did not expound the case for poverty. All we are left is a cliffhanger case and a blatant assertion "it is 14%" without any explanation whatsoever. Moreover, Pro did not explain how inequality is less important than the overall increase in income. He simply asserts this with a bold general statement as most of his case ends in cliffhanger endings. Thatcher's Poll taxEntirely dropped. Pro accepted and proffers little substantiative arguments, the resolution is negated. ConclusionI'd like to thank my opponent for this debate. I'm really sorry if I came off as offensive to you, but I made it clear I wasn't attacking your character. The fact that you proposed a challenge clearly suggest that you are a formidable opponent with so much things to offer. The fact that you wishes to argue facts instead of how big snooki's pacific ocean was or how the walking dead sucks clearly sets you apart from other people. Once more, sorry dude for causing the stir :(Thank you.