f

This being my first debate, I feel I am poorly suited to argue against such a profound statement. I can tell that this is an atypical debate topic, if you can even call it a topic. As I am not entirely familiar with the debating procedures on this website yet (which is to say not at all), I felt this might be a good debate for me to engage in (I must admit I was also attracted by the lovely picture of Yin). The only other reason I chose it is because I did not match the criteria for the other debates that I was actually interested in participating in. If I must claw my way there by embracing in nonsense and emerging victorious then so be it. Constructive criticism would be much appreciated. I would also like to express my absolute joy (*cough cough* this is the topic I was not eligible to discuss) in having the privilege of debating such a person. Good luck But enough with this irrelevant talk of mine.BeginSo I will first outline my initial goals in combatting my opponent's argument:1. I would first like to bring clarity to the topic in the form of more nonsensical gibberish. 2. I will strive to have this nonsense simultaneously converge to create a very sensible argument3. I will prohibit the chewing of gum4. I will use such logical fallacies as circular reasoning, straw men, false dichotomies, ad hominem, ad populum, etc. as well as outright lies5. There will be no candies on Sundays6. Minimal alliterationOn the Matter of FFirst I will address the title of this debate: FAs we can all see, the opponent is Pro-F. Until the opponent has properly defined F I will proceed to make grotesque assumptions about her position. We all know that F stands for "fallacy," "farce," "fear," "failure," "felony," "fickle," "financial distress," "fire," and the f word, "fool." This is simply mathematics. 10/10 politicians agree.From this we can deduce that the opponent supports all sorts of negative concepts. She wishes our children to be imprisoned after committing their first offense (which is consequently also their final). She offers us no solution to public unrest about such issues as the nonissues of the highly valid blindness of these bold statements. If you want fiery fights to find us all and force the feeble to fall prey to the fortunate, then you are Pro-F. If you desire a final solution of fabrication and false fantasy in the form of forced oral pills, then you are Pro-F. If with a fervor you find that it would be far better for humanity to be famished and froth with fright at the frivolous fugitives that roam free, whilst feeling total and unalterable finality, being surrounded by the figurative fog of this fierce destructive force, then you are Pro-F. If you embrace rigid formality and postulate that food of the federal sort should be financed at a fixed rate by the impoverished peasanthood then you are Pro-F. If you forget to fill your fire engine or fix your freight car, then you are Pro-F. You are a threat to the public. The fallaciousness of this group is undeniable. They are forlorn. We must flee from such faulty ideals. So friends, frown with me upon the fuming, fibbing faces (that are both unattractive and large in quality/nature) of these Pro-F ers. If you side with them... fully formed, folded, and fined to the utmost degree you will fall to the flames eternally. The faculty is not at fault, but the foe I fear, for I feel I shall faint.FUNGAL INFECTION.I cannot fathom.If you wish for the fulfillment of this fictional fate along with the deconstruction of the foundations of our beautiful society and a return to fiefs... then you Pro-F. You are flamboyant. You have the framework of a bloody fundamentalist. A foe to all human kind. Furthermore, the opponent wants the figs to ferment. Premarital drinking is a clear Nono, but according to my opponent, this is not the case.Also, her figurative language and references to the "bomb of F-ness" clearly display her support of underage profanity. And we all know underage profanity is wrong because of how wrong underage profanity simply happens to be. Do not be a fool. There is no consent whatsoever in its design nor in its appearance. It is the blister on my eyeball, a plague unto our society. OH DELIVER US FROM EVIL OH LORDY.From this I can with absolute certainty conclude that her soul is darker than black.This is why you must put a stop to this belief and vote CON. It is our only hope. As for Fickle and CirclesIt is clear the opponent herself has yet to make up her mind on certain issues. It is my understanding that I am supposed to be arguing for the case of circles and their nature. Therefore, I find it to be damning to her case to admit that world is circular as she has done. I believe this itself should be enough evidence to support my case. She also admits to the existence of the circles of life. Considering that she has agreed with my position on the matter, I feel no need to argue my case and will instead address the issue of whether or not they have a nature to them. Not only do they have a nature to them, as can clearly be observed, they are also a part of nature. Just take the moon for example. This is obvious, observable evidence that the universe has a favourable disposition to objects with circular appearance. The formation of many structures supports this. The cohesive properties of water, for example. The human eye, which is tasty with tobasco after the plucking out. The bouncy ball even is round in appearance. All of nature's laws are finely tuned to produce these circular objects. As I have mentioned, even spheres, which the opposition claims will overtake the circles and bring an end to the circular world, appear to be circular from a human perspective in many circumstances (for example, with the use of a telcroscope). Without the dark lord Odin to confirm this, we would all be lost in the expanse of random shape chance particle vapor. That would certainly be a frightful situation. A triangular world? I think not.I have a proof for you:1. Jesus Christ is God almighty2. I am Jesus Christ3. Therefore I am God almighty1. God almighty is always right2. I am God almighty3. Therefore in this instance, and in every instance I am correct.The fact that I died on the circle to save YOU is yet MORE evidence for the case of the circle.All of my premises are backed by science. And it is affirmed that I hold the default position. The burden of proof is on my opponent, who uses scientific terms out of context in order to support tyranny.I will now systematically refute her other arguments.The difficulty in drawing a circle is a testament to its greatness, while inverted triangles would have no use in a pentagram without the circle itself.I'd also like to point out my opponents confusion about the bomb of f-ness. I believe she was also referring to the bomb of a-ness, which ended a war. A bad thing? I think not.My Strongest EvidenceThis topic is classified under art. Circles are much more useful in art than triangles. We can observe this in the world around us through the use of the telcroscope. If you are at all familiar with cosmic art, you will know the huge role circles play in it. They are a vital and pivotal part to art and the universe. [2]I will also argue that the Jesus Christ you have mentioned is clearly on my side (meaning I am on my side). There is also the fact that I am god (which I have already proven). I believe the evidence is clearly on my side. I also have research straight from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Michael's Community College to back this up.But in all honesty, I would argue that until the opponent brings clarity to what he/she is actually defended before I can properly shoot it down.In ConclusionDo the right thing. Consume copious amounts of cereal.Cheers to you ^^[1]http://www.sciencedaily.com...;[2] http://www.squidoo.com...Not really sure how to do references .-.