Any given person should do debate

OK, what we just witnessed was my opponent wasting 3/4 of his speech. Having conceded that my given woman should not do debate, he then went on to rebut my contentions. My contentions, however, are meaningless if we both agree that this woman should not do debate, as this is what the contentions are out to prove. His analysis all presupposed not a Palauian woman but "an average American kid" by his own admission. He calls my analysis a false dilemma, yet concedes that the dilemma exists ("it's ridiculous to think that this given woman would debate"). Then he goes on to call it a logical fallacy, yet he never tells us explicitly what the logical fallacy is (a false dilemma is not a logical fallacy as it is possible to have a false dilemma but for the argument to be strictly logical). The remaining quarter was interesting analysis that "any given person" CLEARLY means "an average American kid. " He then goes on the ad hominum, claiming that I have no common sense for failing to recognize that all given people are average American kids. Although my opponent agrees that my character is a "given woman", she clearly cannot be a given person because she is not American and not a kid (clearly, only American kids are people). Besides, she's not an average Palauian either. Therefore how can she possibly qualify as a good example? Well, I have to admit, that's a stunningly good argument. Being non-average, non-American and not a kid myself, I was interested to see such amazingly sophisticated analysis that I am not a person. Indeed, I should nominate my opponent's great philosophical treatise for a Nobel prize. Such wisdom! It's all so common sense! How foolish of me to dare question my opponent's ability to jump to conclusions based on absolutely no evidence at all! I suppose he must be God or perhaps some even higher being, to be able to make these judgments and for them to instantly be true. OK, enough satire. Seriously now. The resolution affirms that it applies to any given person. My opponent has no justification as to why "any given person" means "an average American kid. " No dictionary in the world gives that definition. Not even conservapedia gives that definition. If my opponent thinks any given person will always be an average American kid, he is sorely mistaken. In my first round, I provided analysis as to why it is my opponent's burden of proof that this Palauian lady should do debate. My opponent has not responded, either to that analysis or in response to that analysis. He refuses to engage on the issues that are important in this debate except to appeal to what he calls "common sense. " I'm pretty sure that it's common sense that if my opponent concedes that she's given (which he did), and that she's a person (which he should, women are people too! ), then she qualifies under this moot. I'm equally sure that it's common sense that this motion is not restricted to average American kids. If it were restricted to them, it would have specified them either as a definition in Round 1 affirmative (as would have been proper conduct) or, better still, in the motion itself (replacing "any given person" with "an average American kid").