DetectableNinja's Tournament: Sex offenders should be sterilized/chemically castrated.

I would like to start this round by thanking Mestari for opposing me and DetectableNinja for hosting this tournament. To all who read this. Look back on your own pasts; your own debates. Tell me there wasn't a time where you, as a debater, or just in every day life, made a mistake. We all do. I think that, upon your own reflections, you can still objectively judge this debate on it's content. That is, we do not need to devolve this debate into theory because my opponent says so. An accident happened, and corrections were made. He tries to write this off by saying that I cannot simply drop evidence, because it would put him at a disadvantage. I give him opportunity to post new arguments in his last round, and he declines .The theory attack was just his attempt to claim a win, and a very unorthodox one at that. All of you, hopefully, see this to just be a tactic of Pro's. Nonetheless, I will address Pro's theory, and why it doesn't hold up. In my round three, I gave Mestari my permission to post new refutations, sources, and arguments in his round four, so that it would balance things out. At that point, there was a way to make it completely fair, but my opponent decided not to pursue this course of action. Being that I gave him ample opportunity to respond to my case, and didn't present evidence against him last round, it is not my fault that the debate ended unfairly for him. SO the fairness portion of my opponent's theory falls. Really, this debate is being completely twisted from it's original purpose. It is clear that my opponent could not put together an adequate case, and left the debate to theory, a very unappreciated method. Even if you balance out recidivism rates, you still have two of my contentions that stand: the costs of chemical castration is too high compared to therapies, and therapies treat the root of the problem. This ALONE gives me the win. My opponent realized this and tried to attack my sources. One mistake loses me the whole debate, really? I find it hard to believe that the readers would side with such inadequate grounds for a win. My track record of debates shows me to be an honest debater, and this one flaw should be comforting to all; we know I am a human now. I feel that I didn't get a sufficient debate from my opponent; what was the point of this resolution, if Pro was just going to attack the theory anyway. It takes the debating out of debating. Apply this to his education argument, and it backfires. See, Pro states that a reason for debating is the education it bestows upon debaters and readers alike. By him straying from the content, and going straight to theory, it invalidates his own argument by his measures, because his argument is no longer informative, but simply semantics. In the end, we can all see that my accident from before really didn't have a critical role in this debate. My opponent could, and should, have addressed it in a paragraph or two in his round 3, then refuted my other contentions. I would have then agreed with him and still discarded the statistic. Instead, he blows it up to be some god awful sin, and focuses all 8,000 characters on it, then in his last round only has a couple paragraphs. It is clearly a win for me. Do not let my opponent blind you by what is really happening. His refusal to take my offer, which was to post new arguments in his last round, strengthens the fact that he didn't have a case against my contentions even more. He did not refute my case, but relied on theory, which was not appropriately implemented. He did not back up his case. He didn't even back it up in his last round I have multiple contentions remaining. I have countered his theory argument, though it doesn't even need countering, for we all have been in my position before. Therefore, Con wins. Thank you