Jehovahs Witnesse are not the perfect religion.

Note: JW = Jehovah's Witness Before I analyze my opponents statements, I would like to define the burden of proof that I alluded to last round and the fallacies of "appeal to emotion" and "red herring" that my opponent commits numerous times. Burden of proof- a rule indicating that the affirmative has the responsibility to establish the validity of the claim made by the resolution; the resolution is presumed invalid until the affirmative establishes otherwise. (http://www.geocities.com...) Thus, Pro must provide decisive evidence that proves "Jehovahs Witnesse are not the perfect religion" in order to fulfill this burden. Appeal to Emotion: Using emotionally manipulative techniques to persuade someone that a position is correct, regardless of the logical value of the argument. It's an extremely prevalent practise in advertisements and politics; this is because it's highly effective. Appeals to emotion are often used in conjunction with other fallacies to enhance their persuasiveness. Red Herring: When someone attempts to change the subject in order to divert attention from an argument, it's a red herring. This is often achieved by introducing an unrelated but emotionally charged topic. (http://www.lsnk.org...) Now I will analyze my opponent's argument sentence by sentence. "Okay dude obviously you haven't had any experience with these people at all." This is true, as I stated in round 1 that I was not a JW. However, this is irrelevant to the topic and cannot be considered when voting, as this has nothing to do with the "perfectness" of the aforementioned religion. As such, this is a red herring and should be ignored. "I've been forced to go to their 'meetings' for 14.5 years of my life!!!" Folks, this is a red herring and appeal to emotion. Notice how whether or not he has been to "meetings" is irrelevant to the "perfectness" of a religion. He is also trying to appeal to your emotions by using exclamation points and using words with dark connotations such as "forced". He also gives no conclusive proof that he has been to these meetings. Thus, this statement should be thrown out along with the bathwater (but not the baby). "I think I would know what the heck I'm talking about." First off, that does not mean you are right. As humans are flawed, your thought process for concluding that you know "what the heck you are talking about" can certainly be flawed. Furthermore, to fulfill your burden of proof you must provide evidence such as the religious text I alluded to earlier. Baseless conjectures do not count as evidence. Moreover, this is a red herring and should be ignored by the voters. "Infact if my mom finds out what i'm doing I'm grounded from the computer for a month." Another red herring and appeal to emotion! The punishments of his mother have nothing to do with the "perfectness" of a religion and thus this is a red herring. He also attempts to appeal to your emotion hoping you can relate to the punishments you were dealt, feel sorry for him and vote for him. Furthermore, as there is no proof of this given, my opponent could easily be lying. Because of the fallacious nature of this statement, it must be ignored. "Immediately when i mention that I wanna invite a friend over from school my mom says no, why because none of my friends are JW's." Voters, please see how my opponent makes no connection between religion and his mom's actions other than religious affiliation. As my opponent has not shown any connection between his mom's action and the set of beliefs of JW's, you must assume that there is no connection and see how this is a red herring. Once again, my opponent tries to appeal to your emotions by hoping you can relate to him because of punishments given to you. Once more, he gives no conclusive proof of this and could be lying. Consequently, this sentence must be disregarded. "My mom thinks she's protecting me from Satans clutches but in case my opponent didn't know people are raped inside the walls of their places of worship." My opponent does not prove that his mom's thinking comes from the JW religion thus this is unrelated. He also uses the appeal to emotion by attempting to associate rape with JW. However, he does not even specify as to which religion the rape occurs in thus the connection fails. Even if he made the connection, he offers no evidence that this rape occurs. Thus, because of the fallacious nature of this statement it must be ignored. "Infact one of the elders was on the FBI's most wanted list for child molestation." Here the connection becomes more clear. However, he still offers no proof that one of the elders is on the FBI's most wanted list much less for child molestation. "Furthermore, they are completely against gays and education" Until my opponent can provide conclusive evidence that supports this, this must be regarded as an appeal to emotion and be ignored. "They see gay and bi people as an abomination of god or rather as a disease that must be cured at once." See my analysis of the quote this one and apply it to this one. "Otherwise you aren't in the religion." Please provide evidence for this. Otherwise, this statement must be ignored. "But being bi or gay isn't a freakin' disease that can be cured....." Until my opponent fulfills his burden of proof on certain statements above this must be regarded as a red herring and appeal to emotion and be ignored. "So they commit hate crimes!!!" Again, this is an appeal to emotion and has no conclusive evidence to back this up. Hence, this must be ignored. "And as far as religion goes they would rather see you give the company in New York your college funding then see you succeed in a future that will get you somewhere in life.." Although my opponent finally addresses the religion, his statement commits the fallacy of reification and logically fails (Reification: This is inappropriately treating abstract concepts such as relationships or arbitrary groups as if they have the properties of definite, 'solid' entities. Fine for illustrative purposes in writing, but not for logical arguments. For example, an advertisement announcing that you should "Use Natural-Herb X, because nature always knows best." Nature doesn't know anything; it's a concept that encompasses a wide body of things, not a sapient being. Inappropriately anthropomorphizing an entity is also a form of reification http://www.lsnk.org...). As defined earlier, a religion is a set of beliefs a.k.a. an inanimate object. As an inanimate object cannot want this statement commits the above mentioned fallacy, logically fails and should be ignored. "So until you can tell me what grounds you have to debate me…" What grounds do I have to debate you? The fact that I accepted your debate. It is not my fault that you made the debate open to everyone. You had the full option to challenge one person. "…then try to come up with some good arguments dude...." I am sorry if I appear rude or condescending in my response to this, but I am responding to a personal attack. My opponent suggests that I come up with some good arguments. However, I have conclusively shown why all of my opponent's statements should be ignored, fulfilled my burden of refutation and revealed 18 fallacies that you have committed. Please tell me what else I need to do. Voters please notice the fact that Pro effectively has not fulfilled his burden still and still automatically loses. Back to you.