Being a Fatty is Worse than Being a Ginger

0. FrameworkTo start, even if framework and semantics were the same thing, Pro never posted any rule against semantics.But here's the deal: In Round Two, Pro argued what could be considered disadvantages for both the slightly and extremely overweight. In Round Three it seemed that many of his arguments were based only on the extreme cases of fatties. This is why I argued framework: to set straight the original view of what a fatty was. Because I never agreed in this debate that fatties were only limited to those who could jump in the air and get stuckIt's not semantics, it's just a thought of perspective. But it's bad conduct to add a new argument in a non-rebuttal round? Not in any debate event that I know of. However, Pro presents new evidence in Round 4, the rebuttal, where one should only sum up what has been argued.Is that good conduct? Is declaring bad conduct in bold print just so noobs give you the extra point good conduct? Is not arguing Framework because you basically just think it's stupid good conduct? So should my opponent really be so quick to talk about poor conduct in this debate?..................................... It's completely worth arguing that fatties are not limited to just people like my grandma. And Pro conceding it just because he thinks it's stupid it no better conduct than Framework itself. 1. SwimmingA. This is what I was referring to in Framework. Adding new evidence in the last round is not a Kosher thing in the debate world. The rebuttal round is for summaries.Beyond that, it's a common person fact that redheads have lighter pigments in their skin that causes their burns to be more painful and severe. Gingers feel pain, fat people feel embarrassment.Pain > Embarrassment.B. The picture I presented was at least orbiting around the average ginger. The picture Pro presented was an extreme case of a fat person. It's a fine example of why Framework is important, but Pro concedes anything to do with Framework because I guess he's too cool for it.C. In South Dakota where civilization is scarce, there are four years of middle school science. One of them, in which, is advanced anatomy and meteorology. Arguing credentials is no way to dodge fact.D. I thought we weren't going to argue outrageous things like cyborgs. That was the first rule pro set, and then he immediately accused me of being a robot. What. You're a silly seal. 2. PreggersA. My opponent argues that he has a logical opinion, but does not back up why his opinion is more logical than someone else's. However, Chris Farley made far more money than my opponent does, so he should absolutely be trusted more as a professional.B. The top one was pregnant; the bottom one was fat. I really don't understand how bad Pro's vision/standards could be. He concedes this because we all know which one is pregnant, and we all know that there is a vast difference.My opponent has not at all met his burden of proof that fat people look pregnant. 3. I Told You About the Stairs BroA. There's no higher percentage of effort than 100%. Therefore FAP can't even math, therefore FAP doesn't know what the FAP they're talking about.President Obama is the one who implemented the mandated shoes in the first place. Our nation can't afford jet packs right now. B. My opponent concedes once again because who needs Framework when you have swag. Still, the average fat person with soled shoes has a perfectly fine time climbing stairs. Gingers do not.4. Lol He Said Fart A. My opponent is putting a percent in front of everything he's saying and hoping it will make his arguments any more credible.The truth is, my four year studies of the flatulent sciences far outweigh his three. In my expert knowledge, I can tell you that fat farts are the single healthiest thing for our atmosphere.B. Now that I talk about my scientific experience, I come to realize that Pro also conceded point B. And it actually had nothing to do with Framework.5. I Like 'Em ChunkyA. Only twelve Nobel prizes? In science? That's such a fake category. That's silly. You're still a seal. Truly, Pro did not legitimately prove that anyone likes gingers above fat people. Burden of proof not met.B. Well in that case, Pro also conceded Rupert Grint.C. He barely gave a sass argument so I will barely give one as well. Don't sass me bro.6. Physical ActivityFootball: "I'm not saying they can't do it". If they can do it, then they have a place in physical activity. Point proven.Golf: My opponent says that it's proven that a fat person can't operate a golf cart. Really? Because he never presented that in any argument from what I can remember.Baseball: "I'm not saying they can't do it." Then once again we've proven that fat people have a place in physical activity.Basketball: More new evidence, more "percentages", more anger conveyed in bold print. Most black people can't jump over a human. Pro never proved otherwise.Sumos: From what has been shown, the average fat person is equally as able in sport as the next guy. Meaning fat people are if anything equally as advantaged as gingers, meaning Pro's resolution is still false.B. Pro was tired so he said "screw it" and didn't argue framework at all.Bottom line: = is not >.7. NoticeabilityA. Pro is very confused. Buying pillows hurts the individual and helps greedy companies. It's much better for the economy for a fat guy to do his unique fat pranks. Only a fat person can pull them off, making noticeability not a problem.B. There is one Osama Bin Laden. You can't argue otherwise. You can't. You can't. Fat people do just fine in non-combat positions in the military. They can serve their country, even if they are noticeable. Therefore, noticeabilty does not make a fatty worse off. C. There's no control. None. As a ginger, I can guarantee it. We cannot control our fire, and it is arrogant to think that we can.It Sucks to be a Ginger and Here's Why1. Firebending?Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm. Once again I thought for sure Pro said we wouldn't argue outrageous things. Our fire powers are not within our own control.No firebenders on The Last Airbender are gingers. None.And I wonder why I didn't argue that every firebender didn't dye their hair. Not because what Pro said about that is completely irrational or anything...2. Combusken Yes, Pro did forfeit this. The good does not outweigh the bad. We are just as likely to kill our friends as we are to kill our enemies. 3. Cyborgs/EmotionsI still don't understand how Pro could have so easily broken his only rule about outrageous arguments.No Emotions = No soul.At no point does that mean we are robots.Once again, we feel no happiness, therefore our lives inevitably suck worse.4. Getting Jiggy With ItMaking profit < Getting my @ss kicked. My opponent was likely too tired to argue at this point, making his argument sadly weak.5. PotA. Don't try to cover this up. You're a racist carp, you seal.B. No, rainbows have no end. It's fact.C. Nice try, but I call photoshop.Why Con Wins:PRO IN ROUND 1:" No going EMEMGERD FAT PEOPLE ARE FLYING ALIENSFRFROM MARZ THEREFORE THEY ARE BETTER." Or anything like that! Let's keep it real bro."PRO IN ROUND 4:"Gingers have fire powers, are awesome robotic cyborgs, work for the government, and are secretly taking over the world!"... -Wouldn't argue Framework because he thought it was dumb.- Put a percentage in front of anything he couldn't back of- Very, Very, Racist. In the end, gingers have no souls, meaning no happiness, meaning they physically cannot be better off than anyone at all, let a lone fatties. And Morgan Freeman approves. Good game, Pro. It was fun :D