This debate will not be interesting.

I would like to start this round by saying the following: MY OPPONENT IS SO FAT THAT WHEN HE FELL OFF THE BOAT, THE CAPTAIN SAID "Land Ahoy!" First, I'll start off my case by proving how my opponent is interested in this debate even by his own definition. To do this, I must show that he is engaged/excited and that this debate holds his attention or curiosity. Observe the information in the following link: http://dictionary.reference.com... "v. intr. 1.To involve oneself or become occupied; participate: engage in conversation. 2.To assume an obligation; agree. 3.To enter into conflict or battle: The armies engaged at dawn. 4.To become meshed or interlocked: The gears engaged. " Engaged: Although this is on the American Heritage section of that page, this is a definition which dictionary.com upholds, so usage is completely acceptable. More importantly, you should observe the first definition provided in that quote. Noting this definition, I ask that you tell me who STARTED this debate? My opponent of course. Since he involved himself or become occupied with this debate by his own free will, this would suggest that he has engaged himself in this debate. Attention: My opponent is participating in this debate and is has actively responded to my questions. Since that is the case, this debate is holding his attention. Thus, I've proven that the PRO is interested in this debate. Now my opponent admits that he initially has no evidence to prove that I won't be able to make this debate interesting. In other words, he is merely basing his original idea off a mere HUNCH. Ladies and gentleman, this is basically his way of saying that he is just going to argue no matter what I tell you. Even if I provide what he acknowledges as conclusive evidence to show that this debate will be interesting, he is going to rely on deceptive tactics. I ask that you don't fall for whatever tricks he intends to employ during this debate My opponent states that he has every intention to make this debate uninteresting. If this debate is ALREADY uninteresting as he has insisted in round one and if what he says is true (concerning the idea that I won't be able to make this debate interesting), why would he need to do this? Furthermore, why would he go out of his way and contribute to it as he has promised in response to my third question? By his definition, this is more evidence that he is interested in this debate. In the next round, I would like my opponent to present evidence to back up his claim on the matter of there being a maximum (or somewhere around) of 5 users stumbling upon this debate page. Furthermore, I would like evidence that would suggest that people won't wish to observe any of the content in the debate itself. My opponent states that the proof can only be given when the debate is done. Merely using the result of the 5 rounds as proof would further suggest uncertainty on my opponent's part. In other words, he is merely assuming that this debate will be uninteresting. At any case, I will accept this condition which my opponent has made. Although it must be noted that not being able to argue his "proof" for more than one round will be detrimental to his chances of winning this debate. GEORGE BUSH IS THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now I will answer my opponent's questions: 1)I accept your definition of interesting. That said, I hold that any definition which dictionary.com provides is a definition which it upholds and is hence fair game for me to use in this debate. 2)I've already made this debate interesting for you while upholding YOUR definition of interesting. You've done just as the definition dictates. Also, the beauty about what is interesting is that there are different levels. One can be slightly interested in something or very interested in something, and this something will still be considered interesting. I have another means of making this debate interesting for others. As for what it is, merely reading all of the content in my rounds should inform you of what it is. 3)I'm interested in this debate because I love debating, regardless of the topic. 4)Physical features are irrelevant. As in real life, it is their words; it is a simple process of how own communicates that allows me to make my conclusions. As I've shown in this round, based on how you've communicated in this debate, you've shown that you possess some level of interest in this debate. 5)I look forward to it. 6)Yes. In fact, this is the first issue I cover. Now if you'll excuse me . . . CHRIS CROCKER SHOULD BE A ROLE MODEL FOR CHILDREN: CHECK HIM OUT HERE: http://youtube.com...