I will lose this debate.

I will prove that the assertion is as long as a ruler, however it is not lengthy enough to fill the diameter of a kilometer. That being said we know that eggs come from chickens, however a chicken cannot exist without a drum stick. This is fundamental to eating chicken. When we cook chicken, we realize that it either has to be grilled, boiled or fried. Some deep fry. Following that reasoning we also acknowledge a case where a woman sued McDonalds for spilling coffee on her lap, it was a spill proof cup. The coffee spilt therefore it wasn't truly spill proof. When one lies his nose grow big like Pinocchio. Note that I used the term he because I believe Pinocchio was in fact a woman disguised as a stick. She stole her masters masculinity, making her and him and eventually causing his head to turn into a stick and the rest of his body to follow through From this we see that my opponent cannot be losing, because like Pinocchio, his nose is growing bigger as he writes. I know because we are all one, as I was saying and as he (who in actual fact is an extension of me) attempted to rebut my (his) assertion that we are one in the same. I can see through the lies because those are my lies. If you draw the tree of life and connect all the branches you find out that the source is the same for both me and him. Our thoughts emanate from one source, which is the root. I'm not sure whether the root is more like me or more like him (we are 2 branches in the same tree, therefore we are the same) All I know is the root is the truth, the root cannot lie, the root cannot lose. He cannot lose as he is part of the root, and if the root loses then the branch falls apart. If he lost then I would lose too and that would negate his assertion My opponent (who also happens to be me) said "I give a crap" That is an indication of him acknowledging that I am him and he is me. The use of the title I relates directly to me, because I am also I, we have the same title "I" therefore we are 1, which is also ironic because when you look at it I looks like 1, meaning we are also related by inference. I refers to 1, I is 1, we are 1 because we are "I" Me also refers to the title that is associated with myself, he acknowledges Me as an entity, Me is I and I is me. If the majority of the world do not know about something, then it doesn't exist in the sense that it doesn't matter or rather has no relevance to the outside world. If a billion people don't know about a keyboard, then it has no relevance to their lives and looked at subjectively it does not exist in their minds. Its subjective existence is dependent on whether or not people acknowledge its existence. Therefore subjectively this debate does not exist as it has no bearing on the lives of the average person. It only exists in the mindsets on those who are reading it at the present moment. Its existence is also fleeting because 2 months from now, chances are no one will be reading this debate and most people would have all but forgotten about this debate, therefore one could say that it would no longer exist subjectively in our minds. If something does not subjectively exist and does not have an objective existence, much like the sun (you cannot deny the sun's existence because you see it everyday and it ahs a bearing on how your world operates) then it is as good as non existence. Therefore one cannot lose in something that does not exist, because one cannot take part in something that is not real. What is occurring here is a quasi-reality, it is not occurring. Let me explain why, as I was saying when a person has died, his/her brain continues to function for 7 minutes, therefore a dream could seem like a lifetime, especially considering that when you are dead you cannot wake up because you have nothing to wake up to, therefore the laws of time (being as subjective as they are, "time flies when you are having fun", therefore to those who constantly have fun, time goes faster that normal) do not apply to you. The 7 minutes could be extended to what feels like years. Which is what is currently being experienced. You could be dead at this moment, make no doubt about it, you could be (could is very probably and statistics say could means 90% likely, for example if a girl/woman told you could get laid tonight, chances are you will, however if she is under age then you shouldn't and if she is engaged then you should decide whether or not you want to risk whatever consequences could be attached to her fianc"e finding out. If you are a woman then replace girl/woman with boy/man. If you are gay/homosexual then replace with whatever you deem necessary) dead. If you are dead , the you cannot lose because this is not truly reality, this is the imaginative reality your brain has created and already your brain has predetermined who wins and who loses because I am controlled by your brain (which is the root) and so are the voters. Whatever outcome emanates is not indicative of the truth, therefore it is false, therefore you cannot lose Furthermore it is unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional to discriminate on one's sexual orientation or sexual preference. Therefore the comment on sex with animals is uncalled for. My hypothetical (seeing as I don't exist and am merely an extension of Pro) right to privacy has been infringed. I have suffered grave damage to my dignity and have been defamed by an assertion that may or may note be true. As such I seek relief to the order of Pro's forfeiture of any votes he may or may not obtain, failure of which an appeal will be launched with the relevant authority. In the event that the appeal fails, Con argues that there has been bias and the judges should have recuse themselves from the decision making process. In the event that a jury system has been adopted to judge this case, the Con argues that the evidence presented has been tempered with and falsified and all the witnesses are in fact fraudulently working against Con's case and should not be considered as valid and credible witnesses. Furthermore Con wishes as an alternative to apply for an interdict barring all actions that are detrimental to Con, by Pro as they will unfairly infringe on several of his constitutional rights and cannot therefore be constitutional. Rights such as dignity, equality, life and right to access of the court. Under the Interim Constitution and final Constitution of South Africa, the Constitution of the United States of America, common law, the constitution of the people's republic of China, the constitution of Canada, all other relevant constitutions and the United Nation's Human Rights Charter Furthermore I have proved that Pro can never ever ever in a billion years lose this argument, therefore his assertion is wrong and can never be right, must not be considered as right. Has failed to meet up with the minimum requirements set by such an assertion. Has failed to establish the basis of such a claim and is wrong, unjust, unlawful and unconstitutional