No One Has Ever Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to Do Look More Like

So here we are, the final round. Lets end this1) Nobody Clares"See round two, where it was stated by me that making everyone a unicorn is only an example of using even. "Just because you make an example of being far even as decided to use evengo want to do look more like to turn everybody within a 5 mile radius into a unicorn, it doesnt make it an accurate representation of the concept of using even to go want to do look more like! Such an example grossly overcomplicates the already complicated concept of using even to go want to do look more like to a degree that it makes it look improbable when the odds of someone ever evan as deciding to use even go want to do look more like. "Because, as my opponent stated, this is impossible, there is no way anyone could have gone far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. " TO TURN EVERYBODY IN A 5 MILE RADIUS INTO A UNICORN, You keep cutting off what im trying to say to disprove my arguments rather then offer logic or evidence against them. 2) Probability of probability not "My opponent argues that you cannot access multiple multiverses by using even to go far as to even even when the even has gone so even to even as even as if. "Theres a difference between being unable to access multiple multiverses by multiplying being as far even as deciding to use even go want to do look more like times the speed of even, and being unable to access multiple multiverses by using even to go far as to even even when the even has gone so even to even as even if. Those are two completely different arguments and logic only supports one of them, and I never said that you cant access multiple multiverses by being as far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like like you imply. Therefore the argument stands"However, he does not provide any better evidence that reaching other multiverses is possible,"Thats because Newtons fourth law of even states that the finding of conclusive evidence that clearly implies the possibility of using even go want to do look more like will defeat the concepts of how the concept of even even works in the first place. In other words, giving scientific evidence of the concept of even causes a chain reaction that renders the concept of even incompatible with to do look more like. 3) You accidentally the entire economy" However, from the evidence presented, no one has ever USED even before. Therefore, the only legitimate advice remaining is the survey taken by world leaders. "You cant have USED even because as I already showed in round 2 you, even is just a conceptual theoretical tool to apply either on a personal or economic scale. Countries using even is as ridiculous as claiming that countries have used capitalism. You dont use it, you BECOME it, and plenty of wealthy countries have become even. "The majority of these nations voted "stroke" when given the survey"Stroke in even talk means 'ask again later' because they are still on the fence about using even. Everybody knows that, and even if they dont, answering 'stroke' in the survey does not translate to flat out denial of converting an economy to use even. "they have come to the educated decision that someone doing so would destroy the world economy beyond repair. "That is a blatant lie since again, stroke in even language means they abstain from giving an opinion regarding the use of even on economies. 4) To Penis or not to penis? "The difference between apenis and a vagina truly sets this contention up nicely. And there is quite a difference. If any reader would like to be fully educated on the differences, please click here [. http://wiki.answers.com......] " Well there is plenty of differences between an apenis and a vagina, but im talking about penis's not apenis's. Theres a massive between the two and penis's have a lot in common with vaginas, much more then apenis's"then both A&E and A and E represent d words, which proves that E neither exists nor doesn't exist, which proves that no one has ever gona far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. " But when E is locked between both existence and non-existence, then Spongebob's rent cannot be used to disprove someone being as far even as deciding to use even go want to do look more like. "And it's true, someone can, but it has been established that while possible, is so inconceivably unlikely that whether possible or not, has not happened in our existence. "I have established the flaw in the pro's logic though by highlighting that you have to multiply the odds of using even by the speed of even to get the true probability of someone being far even to decide to use even go want to do more like, which is 66%=============================================================Too long didnt read, why my army will vote conThe bigger things: 1) The Pro continuously cut off my arguments and statements to try to make me look like im against my own position instead of trying to actually disprove the arguments themselves. 2) The pro claims I never provided a specific method to prove the math behind the use of even, even though he never asked or requested it in the first place. Whats next, I have to explain the actual concept of being far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? Aint nobody got time fo dat!3) Pro claims that world leaders are almost unanimously opposed to using even on an economic scale even though less then 10% actually stated so. A majority of them replied 'stroke' which in even talk means 'abstain'. 4) Con claims that I never provided evidence of a particular person being as far even as decided to use even go want more like, but once again he never requested an example prior to the final round, which is a very penis move to pull.5) Con claims that I focused on showing the difference between penis's and vagina's while the entire time he was comparing apenis's to vagina's, and then has the balls to call me out for the same thing he was doing!