chocolate

"Also, my opponent does not make any sense." Then let me clarify. You posted some list of forty reasons why sugar in candies is bad. You conceded that chocolate has sugar in it. So that list of bad things applies to both you and me, making it have virtually no impact in this debate. It doesn't mater how much sugar is there, but only the presence of it to be at risk for the forty harms. So since I'm providing the only unique harm to my opponent, sugar-based candies can be seen as healthier. "What my opponent is suggesting is that people who eat chocolate are suicidal."Not at all what I'm implicating. The entire premise of my position relies on when we eat chocolate, it releases endorphins and hormones into our body that could cause mood swings (to this you conceded earlier in the debate). These mood swings can lead to depression, and depression is a known cause of suicide. I'm not saying "Hey guys! Everyone who eats chocolate is a suicidal maniac!" That would be ridiculous. I'm saying that because of the hormones released by chocolate can cause mood swings, those mood swings may lead to suicide. Which is a worse harm than the forty that you listed. My opponent is not paraphrasing my rebuttalYes I am. They also state that I have made no argument for their claim of chocolate leading into suicide. This is also false.1. No you didn't. Throwing up a list of different causes of suicide doesn't mean that chocolate can't lead to it as well.2. Even if, I can concede to that list and say sure, they cause suicide. But nowhere in that list does it say that chocolate can't. I have provided clear evidence to show link by link my argument, and THAT is what he hasn't attacked. If anything, chocolate is an anti depressant.Okay, even if. Let's say chocolate was an anti-depressant. Anti-depressants work by releasing certain endorphins and hormones into your body to calm you. That still bites straight into the harms of potentially causing mood swings, which could lead to depression and then suicide. So either way, the harms are still there. He constantly tells the viewers to vote con.Am I not allowed to? I didn't realize that this was a rule. Sorry for trying to win the debate? "he claims he is looking forward to an interesting debate."Why does me wanting to win interfere with me having an interesting debate? There's no link between the two. "this is a fallacy to the argument."1. Why is trying to win a fallacy?2. If trying to win is a fallacy, then we're both equally guilty of commiting it. So this round breaks down in a few ways:1. The BOP was even between us both to prove why one side was less healthy than the other side. The pro's only claim to this was a list of forty reasons why having sugar in candies is bad. I provided you with one unique reason, independent of sugar, as to why chocolate is bad. So either way you look at it, the harms break out into either one of two ways:a. 41 harms to eating chocolate: 40 harms to eating just sugarb. 1 unique harm to eating chocolate: no unique harms to eating sugarSince I'm clearly winning the BOP there, this is the first place you can vote con.2. I am the only one actually creating clash in this debate. My opponent never attacked any of the sources I used, only defended his own and said that I wasn't making sense. I was the only one attacking my oponent's evidence and, therefore, creating clash. So even if the debate is at a stand-still, you'll be voting con off of a risk of offense. So the voters have two clear reasons to vote con. The pro provided none in their last speech. At this point, I see no reason why one shouldn't vote for the con debater.I thank my opponent for this opportunity to have a fun debate, and I wish him a speedy recovery from their surgery. My thoughts go out to him and hope that he feels better.