This debate is hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT confusing!

Congratulations. An excellent, excellent round!Let me start off by refuting my opponent's refutations to my supporting of the non-refutations:-One day the monkey went on to stare at us....-One day the monkey wants to murder you....Now, first we must note that my opponent admits that the audience will be confused by my monkeys traversing the bars.Next, to refute her theory and support.Here my opponent calls on special scary cases mentioned above, and why are these cases confusing? For one, the monkey that seems to want to murder you is actually smiling and having a happy face on. That's pretty dang confusing. Why, humans can sufficiently be evil, but as monkeys are only 97% not not not not similar to humans, obviously it will be difficult to understand why they will be smiling but want to kill you at the same time. Similarly, the poker-face monkey will not allow any bloodshed, since his lifeless eyes contradict my opponent's claims and only show further how my opponent is wrong and that he does not want to murder anyone, so it would be confusing to look at a monkey with a normal expression yet somehow "wishing to kill you".Let's talk about her arugment trying to explain about how roses are red and violets are violet. First of, it's very confusing. Note how the words are noted in a poem format; And who writes poems? Williams Shakespeare. And who understands Shakespeare? Nobody. If we don't understand this poetry, then it's very confusing. Thus, my opponent's poor attempt to explain my still-confusing gif, only furthers our confusion in this debate to show that this debate is confusing. This debate is hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT confusing! My opponent seems to have cleared up the resolution, yet it's still confusing, particularly still due to the fact that I am CON, the resistance against the resolution, PRO. Yet pro has to support a resolution of NOT confusing while I have to go against "NOT confusing" which makes my burden of proof, "This debate is NOT not confusing", and combined with the whole entire title, "This debate is NOT, hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT confusing". With all the CAPS and all the commas, in addition to the fact that I am CON, will give all the judges a hard time to judge, give them a massive headache, which makes it all more NOT, hardly, not nearly-not not, not not, not not, NOT, not NOT, NOT confusing.Explaining "We".First of, "we" are family. Like if you get the reference. My opponent's main argument:*claps hands*A wondrously worded argument!! BUT-- Can you refute an invisible yet not entirely invisible argument? Yes, invisible is not confusing, and neither is poor visibility (both which were presented.) But what if you combine the two, and have something in between? You can barely see these words, I know it. If you are reading this, then congratulations. You are a genius. Yet, how did I do this? Isn't that confusing? And what's this? ACTUAL invisible yet not invisible-at-the-same time-SPANISH?? Jaja, usted es probablemente muy confundido en este momento mientras lees esta frase española. Not to mention ACTUAL non-invisible yet invisible GREEK! Z8;λα τα επιχειρ^2;ματα που μου ^1;ρχονται μαζ^3; για να υποστηρ^3;ξει ιδ^1;α μου, και σκοτεινa2; το^3;χο του αντιπ^0;λου μου δεν την βοηθοa3;ν το λιγa2;τερο λ^3;γο για να νικ^2;σει το ψ^2;φισμα. SOME HUGE WORDS TO DISTRACT YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU AND YOUAnd what's most confusing is that i make my distraction really obvious and big, which is not smart--not what I usually do....hmm... how suspicious.Finally, my opponent herself brings her own downfall. By playing the scarecrow song, she turned the judges into dumb scarecrows, who cannot understand anything and are confused by everything. Thus, that makes the debate super confusing.Back to you for the final round, my opponent.