Concerning Postmen

"I have set out the initial definition. You can't set another definition without me accepting it, which I do not. My opponent also needs to do a bit more explaining aswell to show that a dog is not "a autonomy entitled citizen". I for one do not comprehend this statement! " You cannot put out a normal definition without me accepting it. I have clearly shown that dogs have autonomy but people have more. "I will now define "people", since my opponent has left this open. A "person" is simply something with a "personality". And I will now make the claim that inanimate objects can have a "personality". Why? Because people often say "that chair adds a good deal of the Edwardian character to the room". In order to have "character" the chair must have some form of a "personality", mustn't it? You would of course be allowed bite a chair, however I do not advise it, you might get carted off the the mental asylum. But on a second thought, that might be best for everyone. An example of such a chair would be as follows: . http://www.thefurniture.com...; MY OPPONENT SAYS I CAN BITE CHAIRS BUT DOES NOT SAY WHY I CANT BITE HUMANS WHO BY MY OPPONENTS DEFINITION ARE ALSO PEOPLE. "My opponent fails to explain however why they are more valuable to society. " THIS WAS THE ARGUMENT YOU MADE ABOUT WHY DOGS ARE BETTER SO I DONT SEE WHY I CANT USE A COUNTER ARGUMENT. I would be very interested to know what a "DOCOR" is. A quick search on Google came up with this: . http://www.docor.co.il...... It seems to be that a "docor" is a website promoting businesses or something of the sort. I don't know whether its "MORE VALUABLE TO SOCIETY" or not, but I can tell you this, a website cannot physically bite someone. Good luck trying to prove that. It is obvious I was trying to say doctor. "K I'll extend it then. " I WIN OFF THIS ARGUMENT ALONE. "By putting in the final two empty brackets, I have EXTENDED MY ARGUMENT, just as my opponent has asked. It is also to be noted that my opponent makes no effort to refute this point, simply demanding that I extend my argument. I will now demand that my opponent REFUTES MY POINT, NOT MAKE DEMANDS. " I CLEARLY REFUTED THIS POINT BY SAYING a persons well-being is more important than than entertainment. "My opponent has now taken a lazy form of debating as I would like to call it. He claims that "poor postmen are being bitten" but does not offer any reason to believe why not. " SHE IS STRAYING AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL ARGUMENTS BY SIMPLY JUST SAYING ITS LAZY DEBATE. "New Zealand is a piece of land, which is very valuable. The simple fact that land has a large monetary value should prod you into action to SAVE NEW ZEALAND FROM THE SHEEP HATERS! " NO IT WOULDNT. "You could clearly hear the people laughing in the background as the people fell over, got hurt etc. This proves that people DO find enjoyment in other peoples pain. ' ONCE AGAIN WELL BEING OVER ENTERTAINMENT. "Once again, my opponent lazily types something in block capitals in hopes of wining this round. " YOURE THE ONE BEING LAZY AND NOT RESPONDING TO ANYTHING. "Oh yes, I am completely lying through my teeth when I say I am representing the PRO side. It is blatantly obvious I am not, even though "Pro - in favour" is written above my name at the top. I am so glad that you foiled another liar. You should become a full time lie detector, you do the job better then the machines! " MY OPPONENT CONCEDES SHE IS LYING.