Water is a toxic/addictive substance

The Con did not add anything new to her argument so this round i will attempt to shorten my arguments/corrections The con stated that" Pro drops my argument rebuttal 'Rebuttal #1 Water can be found in the air as water vapor' untouched." This is untrue because this just so happens to be the first rebuttal that i went over in my round three argument.(To be honest i have no clue how she missed this because it was specifically titled Con rebuttal #1.) i would like to point out that the con corrected me on making singular i's lowercase. i will pay this little attention this slandering statement because it has nothing to do with the debate and also the Con has made her fair share of grammar errors as have i. Next i would like to point out that i stated that i recognized that the con cited her sources but i still would like to say that the con has "TYPED" very few arguments of her own(one of which i will discuss in the next paragraph). this means that none of her arguments are original. I would go to believe that it is because she knows very little of this topic. After reading the cons section entitled "Pro Rebuttal 2" i have gone to realize that the con does not pay attention to any of my arguments. I have come to this conclusion because in this argument the con attempts to counter one of my arguments for the second time now although in have clarified it two times( three times after this). This was my statement that "The average person can only survive 3 days without water." She has constantly tried proving a fact that i'm am well aware of. On two separate occasions i have stated that the AVERAGE person cannot survive more than 3 days without water. i hope you notice the key word there con, AVERAGE. I am well aware of the fact that some people can and have survived longer than 3 days without water. The cons argument titled "pro rebuttal 2"(which i referred to in the previous paragraph" is quite laughable. This is because it shows that the con has no knowledge of what the true definition of Addiction is. IN this paragraph she states that "People become addicted to Alcohol because it makes them feel "good" because they become drunk You can't get drunk off of water." I will be paraphrasing here but in this statement the con pretty much stated that water cannot not be an addiction because you can't get drunk from it. THis would mean that people cannot be addicted to gambling, food,shopping,sexual activities etc. because you can't get drunk from these task. All jokes aside the proper definition of an addiction is "a persistent, compulsive dependence on a behavior or substance." This is why water fits the criteria of being an addiction. We are constantly drinking water, and we are dependent on it. One of the cons final statements was that "This doesn't make sense; We need water to survive, yet it's toxic and addicting ad you can die." i would explain this AGAIN but i am tired of having to repeat myself because the con refuses to pay attention to my arguments, so if the con wishes to see my answer she can go to my round 3 argument and read the section entitled Con rebuttal 3. Lastly i would like to point out that the Con accused me of plagiarizing because i did not put the quotes in parenthesis. I would like to point out that you don't put quotes in parenthesis but in quotation marks. I would also like to point out that i did not quote anything that didn't have quotation marks, i paraphrased, which do not require quotation marks. With this i conclude my argument and wish the Con the best of luck. Side note* in my con rebuttal 1 of round three i used an example that stated that"... if someone asked what the answer to 1 1 is i could reply with 5. In this example i did not mean ll i meant 1+1 Source(s) http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...