If This House had a time machine it would kill Emily Bronte

Aaaand props to my opponent for trolling as schizophrenically as a demented penguin -_- (Following the Imabench Doctrine, treating a troll debate seriously is kinda a forfeit...) "And murder is not?" Murder is the lesser of two evils in this case. And seriously, it's EMILY BRONTE, NOT MOTHER THERESA. You cannot claim that killing this dire specimin of "humanity" is a crime against humanity as a whole. (Indeed it is a favour to all those who might have otherwise read her books). "... still be a classic of American literature." SINCE WHEN IS THE NORTH OF ENGLAND LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES?My opponent's USA-centric view of the world shows that he must live in America, rendering his points about crimes against humanity irrelevant as his country is in no position to preach."Tuberculosis is not that bad in terms of dignity." Granted, but when she could die in the prime of her youth after being assailed by a mysterious assassin who subsequently disappears into thin air - a dignified, mysterious death of the poor 'innocent' damsel - it pales into undignified insignificance. "He has lied..." Reread my argument. My precise quote was "there would be few negative side effects". This is NOT the same thing as "there would be a few negative side effects". I never acknowledged that there would be any significant negative side effects ("few" and "a few" mean very different things), and even if they were they would be insignificant compared to the benefits. A fact you have yet to efficiently rebut. "We could not just send a liar wondering back in time with a gun..." I have demonstrated I am not a liar, you just mangled my words, therefore this point is invalid. Anyway, if we assume the time machine already exists and we go with your US-centric view of the universe, it's not exactly difficult to get a gun and then jump in the time machine... besides, I never said that I would be the one to go back in time. This is another assumption from Con. For the record my plan was to use a pre-trained robot that would self-destruct having shot Bronte, therefore guaranteeing that the right thing would happen. "Pro simply states his opinion of the book." Given the lack of any literary-based criticisms of this book from Con, I'm willing to assume he's never read it (in fact, if he thinks it's American, I'm certain of it). So how is Con's opinion any more valid than mine? Between the two of us I'm the more trustworthy source. "There are plenty of damaging things that kids are watching right now..." My opponent (not having read the book) has been unable to respond to my list of unacceptable themes which play out in this book. I have already demonstrated why reading Wuthering Heights is just as damaging as watching graphic scenes of murder or weasel pornography. "The two movies of Wuthering Heights would not have been made."For one thing, in this alternative timestream, the book would never have been written either, so nobody would miss the films. For another thing, I turn this point - the films glorified Wuthering Heights, thus encouraging more people to read it, it is a damaging book therefore people shouldn't read it (uncontested by Con) therefore the films are a bad thing. Case closed. "His house is not even responsible enough to state sources." Your house is not responsible enough to read the book before launching into an impassioned defence of it, so... "You have not proved that vomiting occurred." [4] [5]This is a TROLL DEBATE. You do realise that, right? Sources are not the crux of troll debates. "This is simply an opinion. There are lots of people who liked it." Judging from the lack of any source, isn't THAT just an opinion? I've cited sources detailing the stir it caused. All you've given me is IMDB. "Most kids don't enjoy reading and analysing books nowadays." When it comes to sources, you are SUCH a hypocrite. This is an opinion which you haven't backed up. Besides, the number of students choosing to study literature at higher levels would suggest that many young people do still enjoy reading books and analysing them. Wuthering Heights, however, is a pain in the backside to analyse and, as a book, is just pure evil. "You have lied again. My sources say otherwise."1. It's bad conduct to accuse people of lying when they haven't. 2. My sources also say otherwise, and personally I trust a leading daily newspaper and Charlotte Bronte's biography quite a bit more than the IMDB. Wouldn't you agree? Response to Pro's arguments All of Pro's arguments ASSUME that I would be going back in the time machine. This is an ambiguity that I will take partial responsibility for, as I should have been more specific in the parameters of the motion, although 'This House' usually refers to the government and not to the individual speaker. The use of the robot, however - and my opponent should feel free to amend his arguments to reflect this - guarantees that we only kill Bronte. Pro have already demonstrated how this will not cause chaos through time and lead to a grandfather paradox. The robot will self-destruct, the people in the past will not know how to operate the time machine (we'll put the instructions in Korean) and it will just remain a relic.I'm pretty much at the end of my character allowance now, leaving me with no more room to add in another substantive even if I wanted to. Pro has successfully rebutted on everything Con said and shown that his arguments are nothing more than a layer of assumptions, hypocricies, and a mangling of my own words to support his argument. Con's substantives all assume that I am a lying madman (disproven) and that I myself would go back in time (incorrect). Therefore no decent case remains for Con.[1] Elizabeth Gaskell, The Life of Charlotte Bronte, p281[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk......[3] CIE IGCSE English Literature syllabus [4] My grandmother, age 17 [5] My own IGCSE English Literature class, a member of which went out to vomit after we read the bit where the dog was lynched