TheLwerd is a decent human being with a good head on her shoulders.

You mean back to Pro ; ) Now in response to Con's contentions... [ Decency ] 1) My opponent says, "It is true that the majority is not the only standard, but it is the strongest and most noteworthy standard, and which must be conformed to." Keeping in mind that the majority opinion being necessarily correct is indeed fallacious (which my opponent agrees with), I'd like to point out that Con did not explain how or why that majority opinion is the strongest and most noteworthy standard. Therefore we should accept my point that I can still be a decent person even if I disagree with the majority on several occasions. Moreover, this ideal is simply combated using my opponent's own mentality: If we observe all or many moral issues for most of which my ideology WOULD conform to majority opinion, then his point would be moot. For instance, I think murder, cheating and stealing are all wrong along with a plethora of other issues for which the majority of people and I would tend to agree. In that case, since I agree with the majority in most cases, it would appear as if that majority would trump those few things for which I am the minority... meaning, as a whole, I would still be considered a decent person even using Con's standards. Let us keep in mind that Con did not respond to my point that according to MY definition of decency (which must be accepted and Con did not deny that) I am still a moral person even if my beliefs are sometimes in he minority. So again, I have proven to be a decent person by both of our proposed standards. Not to mention that morality and subsequently decency are subjective. [ Really Good Head ] 2) As far as warpy heads go, Con submits that warpy heads are not good because facial expressions are difficult, it would be hard to fit through doorways, and harder to conform to ideals of conventional beauty. First off, who is to say that a warpy head wouldn't make facial expressions easier or more interesting? My default picture is an example of this being the case. Second, tall people have a hard time fitting through door ways: are they not good? Finally, style and beauty are transient; what is considered attractive one day might be thought of as ugly the next. One trend that seems to stand the test of time is that 'the industry' likes things and people that are different. A warped head in this sense would actually then be beneficial. Also, note that Con did not refute the fact that the seemingly warped head may just be a visual distortion of the artist or the viewer. Considering how the head in my default picture was a drawing, this may very well be the case. Not to mention that every aspect of our perception is the result of wiring in our brain; in other words the displayed picture may not actually be warped at all. Now, as far as MY actual head, let us admit that Con again has no proof of the quality of my actual head. For instance, the photo he submitted may not even be the real me, OR it could be an extremely old photo that depicts how my head once was and not how it actually is. Contrary to Con's hopeful assertion that it is somehow it is my burden to prove that my head is a good one, let us address the typical protocol of debate/philosophy: The one who is making the claim ha the burden of proof - not the other way around. In this case, this debate was instigated by Con who made the assertion that I was not a decent person and that I don't have a good head on my shoulders. Sure he could say it was in response to what's posted on my profile; however, that's irrelevant - by that standard the instigator would never have the burden as every theory or hypothesis would be based off of previous assertions. Let us not be distracted and recognize that Con officially has the burden of proof here, meaning it is actually up to him to prove all of his claims true (whether he's Pro or Con). Pro just usually has the burden because they tend to post first, but this debate could have very well been posted as "theLwerd is not a decent human being and does not have a good head on her shoulders" for which my opponent would be Pro. I think you get the point. Keeping all of this in mind, once again I can combat my opponent using his very own standards. He noted that my head is not good because I lack a protective film over my eyes; however, a simple biological description of the eye will prove otherwise -- "Small glands at the edge of the upper and lower eyelids secrete an oily substance that contributes to the tear film and keeps tears from evaporating [1]." In other words, I do have a protective film over my eyes, making my opponent's claim false and thus not contributing to his side of the resolution. Furthermore, it may be a GOOD thing that my ears are shielded/protected from my hair (which is hardly inhibiting as we can logically assume it's not detrimental to me in any way including audio impairment) as the very purpose humans have body hair in general is for protection. [ Head and Shoulders ] 3) Yes, my head is on my neck, and it's also on my shoulders. Con has said that I have tried to manipulate the definition of the word 'on' which I have accepted (word to indicate position and supported by the top surface of); however, I have done no such thing -- I have merely explained why the word on applies to my head being on my shoulders. As I've mentioned, my head is connected to my shoulders by my neck. Ultimately my shoulders support my head. Similarly, if there was food on a plate on a table, no one would argue that there wasn't food on the table simply because there was a plate in between connecting the two. Yes, the food would be on the plate on the table - the food would be on the table. Con has yet to refute this analogy. [ New Arguments ] A) On final note, as long as new arguments can still be introduced (it isn't round three, after all), let us consider that placing one's head on anther's shoulder is a common sign of affection in western culture. Because we can deduce that I am a part of that culture, it would not be strange to assume that one would place their (good) head/s on my shoulder/s. Con cannot prove that this was not the case when I wrote that statement. He also has not provided a reason as to why I'd lie. B) Because semantic arguments have been fair play in this debate, I'll introduce this one: Suppose that "head on my shoulders" was the name of my dog or a personal term that I have for the word dog in general. Apply that mentality to the sentence in question, and it would not only make perfect sense but also stands a very hard thing to disprove. Back to Con so he can talk some more about my good head ; ) Source: [1] http://www.merck.com...