Concerning Postmen

">>>>>>>>>> I offer a counter-definition. a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it. From this definition is it clear that a dog is not a autonomy entitled citizen. " I have set out the initial definition. You can't set another definition without me accepting it, which I do not. My opponent also needs to do a bit more explaining aswell to show that a dog is not "a autonomy entitled citizen". I for one do not comprehend this statement! "I am a citizen but that DOES NOT mean I can go around biting people. Why in any way should dogs have this right" I will now define "people", since my opponent has left this open. A "person" is simply something with a "personality". And I will now make the claim that inanimate objects can have a "personality". Why? Because people often say "that chair adds a good deal of the Edwardian character to the room". In order to have "character" the chair must have some form of a "personality", mustn't it? You would of course be allowed bite a chair, however I do not advise it, you might get carted off the the mental asylum. But on a second thought, that might be best for everyone. An example of such a chair would be as follows: . http://www.thefurniture.com... "Postmen can also serve as loyal companions to their families" My opponent fails to explain however why they are more valuable to society. "A DOCOR MAY BE CONSIDERED MORE VALUABLE TO SOCIETY BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN GO AROUND BITING WHOEVER THEY WISH" I would be very interested to know what a "DOCOR" is. A quick search on Google came up with this: . http://www.docor.co.il... It seems to be that a "docor" is a website promoting businesses or something of the sort. I don't know whether its "MORE VALUABLE TO SOCIETY" or not, but I can tell you this, a website cannot physically bite someone. Good luck trying to prove that. "Extend the argument about how a persons well-being is more important than than entertainment" K I'll extend it then. "People would watch the TV show, simply because people love watching other people get hurt. Well some people do anyway. Look at the success of the show "you've been framed" (. http://www.wcsh6.com.........). This show received a massive audience. The clips often showed people experiencing pain (falling over is a quite common subject). I argue that this new TV show receive viewings, simply because it would be depicting people experiencing pain in a comic matter. []" By putting in the final two empty brackets, I have EXTENDED MY ARGUMENT, just as my opponent has asked. It is also to be noted that my opponent makes no effort to refute this point, simply demanding that I extend my argument. I will now demand that my opponent REFUTES MY POINT, NOT MAKE DEMANDS. "1. Poor postmen are being bitten. 2. Why should anyone care that New Zealand is getting a bad name? " My opponent has now taken a lazy form of debating as I would like to call it. He claims that "poor postmen are being bitten" but does not offer any reason to believe why not. He also asks "Why anyone should care that New Zealand is getting a bad name? " New Zealand is a piece of land, which is very valuable. The simple fact that land has a large monetary value should prod you into action to SAVE NEW ZEALAND FROM THE SHEEP HATERS! "This is a completely new argument. My opponent cannot just change the debate in any way she wishes. Disregard this point" It is not COMPLETLY new, as I had mentioned New Zealand before. I was withholding the point for the second round, as is often done in debates. So I would ask the voters to regard this point. "NO YOU DIDN'T" In fact, YES I DID (to put it into your form of typing! ) The show "You've been framed" had many acts of pain involved. I will site this as evidence: . http://www.youtube.com... You could clearly hear the people laughing in the background as the people fell over, got hurt etc. This proves that people DO find enjoyment in other peoples pain. So I did in fact :D "Once again, MY OPPONENT KEEPS ON CHANGING WHAT SHE PREVIOUSLY ADVOCATED IN HOPES OF WINNING THIS ROUND" Once again, my opponent lazily types something in block capitals in hopes of wining this round. "YOU WOULD SAY DOGS SHOULD BITE POSTMEN. YOUR REPRESENTING THE PRO SIDE ARENT YOU? LIAR! !" Oh yes, I am completely lying through my teeth when I say I am representing the PRO side. It is blatantly obvious I am not, even though "Pro - in favour" is written above my name at the top. I am so glad that you foiled another liar. You should become a full time lie detector, you do the job better then the machines! "DO NOT SUPPORT THE LIAR! I HAVE DISPROVEN ALL OF HIS REBUTTALS! VOTE PRO AND YOU VOTE FOR THE GENERAL GOOD OF SOCIETY! VOTE AGAINST THE PERSON WHO MOCKS BLIND PEOPLE! " I am so glad you agree.