The french are cowards

==== PRO SUMMARY ==== "You are conductiing yourself in a stupid manner , insulting me and calling me biggoted and rascit are you ? I will keep my cool ," REBUTTAL: I said the mentality you operate under is akin to the mentality that fueled the holocaust, slavery, Japanese Internment, Indian Genocide and other egregious rights violations. Yes, labeling a single group as a specific thing is bigoted and ignorant. This isn't a "low blow" when it's the truth. "Any back to my oppents responsose , may i remind you , at no point have i said ALL FRENCH are cowards" REBUTTAL: Unless the majority are cowards then you would automatically negate. For example, if "His apples are red" is the statement you're trying to prove, but 9/10 times apples are NOT red then you wouldn't agree with the statement. So you're saying MOST of the French are cowards. "These people have no moral obligation to vote for anybody , so dont even bother trying that rubbish , claming you are morally right." REBUTTAL: Good block. This is a random assertion, don't accept it as an attack; extend across the moral obligation to negate point. Perpetuating this kind of mentality, which he never argues is indeed not backwards reasoning that justifies atrocities, leads to disastrous consequences and regardless of any impacts in the round (even if the Con is winning) you would still automatically negate because the Con is advocating against genocide and by affirming you support mentalities that support genocide. Do the right thing. ;) "I say that the french worked for the nazi's and killed allies , you "corrected me " by saying the joined the nazis ... oh terribly sorry you have difficulty working out that those two words are similar , and the majority of people will understand this ...." REBUTTAL: I asked you to clarify. You did not. This point can be dropped. "Now i say that , if the frenchmen retreated they would of been shoot , you responded with ... hahaha no ... nice answer ... so i will respond in kind , hahaa of course they would have , unless a general ordered the retreat , if frenchmen abonded there lines they would have been shoot ...." REBUTTAL: Deserters aren't shot. This is just plain wrong. "Now you say that in response to me saying that the french strike at everything this proves they are not cowards . Oh please , they know if they sit down and act up , nothing will happen to them , what do you think its brave and almost hero like to go on strike untill the rest of europe play ball ? pffttt. War veterans msut be turning in there grave if thats todays modern bravery," REBUTTAL: ... this is a rant. There is no coherence here to this argument. He just says, "no it's not brave." it's another assertion. I can't stress how much you need to vote not off of what claims we make but also how we warrant those claims. If I get up here and say, "every french action ever constitutes true courage" you DO NOT VOTE ON THAT, because I don't tell you WHY. Both of us have EQUAL BURDEN to give you a WHY and he does not do this. He asserts things without any real evidence. So you can carry through the rioting point. The only thing i can glean from this unintelligible rant is that he thinks the only way to be brave is through war. ("War veterans...") at that point I guess he's saying we have to look to the WWI / WWII point. Both of which he drops in his final speech, so you can carry my rebuttals through. At that point it makes much more sense to vote CON in this debate. ==== VOTERS ==== (1) The first reason to vote Con is the civil courage point. He never refutes this, just randomly asserts things with no real impact on the debate. He says, "sitting down and ACTING UP" ... those are mutually exclusive terms. But, because he's not contradicted himself previously, we'll just assume he's following the previous thread of "logic" where he says that rioting and organizing unions is cowardly. I present clear logic as to why standing up for what you believe is right, for equality under the law etc is courageous and he never refutes this. (2) The war point. He never refutes the real argument, just makes weak attempts to extend across his unwarranted assertions. You can carry across the 9month battle at Verdun, where 1/5 of the German soldiers held the line for 9 months, and the importance of the french in the most important strategic offensive in the entire war. These points go unaddressed, so this is clear CON territory. (3) Moral Obligation. Again, perpetuating the kind of reasoning the PRO falls under is to perpetuate the ignorant fallacies that create and encourage atrocities. Read his speech, where is there a single logical conclusion? I'm debating him and I can't even find one. Do not support this kind of reasoning, do not justify holocausts. Even if you don't buy the moral point, the CON still gives you two clear reasons to vote against the PRO. The decision is clear.