Deaf people have better sight than Hearing people does.

Time to end this! Now, I did indeed say that I listen, smell hear, feel, and taste my environment to know what's going on. In all honesty, this is no more than a typing error as I meant to state that I relied on my eye sight as well. However, this would have been superfluous as it's quite clear that I rely on my sight. Proof? How else would I be using debate.org, and sight that requires individuals with eye sights? Thus, you can't really penalize me for this typing error due to the obvious. Now my opponent attempts to justify his mistake of not having made any arguments during round one by suggesting that the debate would stay in topic regardless of his actions. Ladies and gentleman, this is my opponent's attempt to suggest that I have veered this debate out of topic. However, as you can see in round one, I replied STRICTLY according to the resolution, so this implication is clearly erroneous. Moreover, I may have taken this debate in a direction which my opponent didn't foresee, but there is no problem with that. If my opponent wished to keep this debate in the direction which he was foreseeing, he should have provided arguments in round 1 for overall clarification. My opponent concludes that I only use my eye sights for enjoyment, but this was not what I was suggesting by claiming that I strongly rely on my eye sight for games such as DDR. Rather, my point was that my eye usage could surpass its normal abilities when I actually relied on them more than usual to know what's going on. But as for needing them to know what is going on around me at all times, I don't believe this was part of the question. DareDevil was mentioned in the comment section and was perhaps mentioned out of jest, so there's no need to take this into consideration. As for giving my opponent the view I want him to expound his claim on, I have done no such thing. All I wanted to know how he could claim that hearing people always depend on their hearing rather than their sight. As suggested and shown in the previous point, this is obviously false (especially due to the word "always." Now, why should you vote CON? Your vote should primarily go towards the CON ballot since PRO dropped my points concerning the wording of the resolution. The conclusion on both of these points was that my opponent's position is impossible, thus the victory would be given to me by default. Even if you have an inherent bias against this kind of argument, you surely cannot ignore my opponent not having even attempted to rebut it. Next, the main downfall to my opponent's argument is usage of absolutes such as "always." I had even provided him with an opportunity to clarify what he meant, but to no avail, he really wishes to insist that deaf individuals ALWAYS have better eye sight than non deaf individuals. As I've pointed out with my 20/20 vision example, this claim is clearly fallacious. These two reasons are the primary reasons to vote CON (in other words, there are more in the debate). With all that said, I'd encourage you to answer my opponent's questions he brought up in round two via comment section as he is no doubt interested in other people's input. I thank my opponent for the debate and thank the voters for reading. Till next time. CYA!!!