Nonsensical argument debate

Conclusion: Pro has not backed up any of his wild assertions with any sources. They are all plainly false to anyone with the slightlest common sense. He does not have nearly enough evidence to justify murder.Counterarguments:CA1. It was decreed by George Optimus Prime LincolnThere is no evidence that George Optimus Prime Lincoln was a real person. Google search results have turned up nothing. [1]. The Cricket People do not exist, and there was never a war with them over Jack Nicholson's sperm, which does not cure testicular elephantitis. Finally, testicular elephantitis does not cause people to "drag their balls across the faces of old statues" [2].CA2. They have been proven to have no soulsContra Pro, pro-choice people do not respond unusually to the color purple. I would ask for peer-reviewed data to back this up. Regardless, the fact that they do not have souls does not justify throwing them into the sun. Pro cannot prove the existenc of souls, yet he would not support throwing all people into the sun.CA3. It would end the Spanish-Israeli ConflictRelations between Spain and Israel are fine [3]. Abortion does not seem to be a factor here.CA4. Space is underpopulatedSpace is underpopulated because humans cannot survive in space [4].Arguments:A1. Murder is WrongShooting pro-choice people into space would kill them. This would constitute murder, which is the unlawful killing of another person [5]. Murder is universally consider to be wrong because it violates the rights of innocent people, degrades the quality of life for all those effected by it, and erodes civilized society. In order to justify murder, Pro will have to offer some very compelling reasons. So far, he has given us a bunch of nonsense.Introduction:I concur with Pro. Pro-Choice people should certainly be shot into space. Here are my counterarguments against Pro:Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com... (warning: contains images of elephantiasis patients)[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...Introduction:8th Grade called, they want their jokes back. Nobody wants to read about Snooki and alien dildos. If Pro knew the first thing about nonsense, he wouldn't know the first thing about nonsense. If I were doing this debate, I would probably pull some stunt like pretending not to know that it's a nonsense debate. Maybe would I even something do weirder, like my debate have degerent into furtherCounterarguments:CAPhilosophicalObjections: 1Naom Chomsky explains:"A case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort appears to correlate rather closely with the traditional practice of grammarians. However, this assumption is not correct, since a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is not to be considered in [redacted] that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. On the other hand, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is necessary to impose an interpretation on the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. For one thing, a [redacted] r cannot be arbitrary in nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. Suppose, for instance, that the natural general principle that will subsume this case is to be regarded as a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test." [1]This reveals a fundamental flaw in Pro's argumnt. I stating if I am apologize the obvious.Arguments:AArguments 1: Arguments1 Vote Con. Argument 2: If this sentence is true, pro-choice people should not be shot into space. By elementary deduce, we logic that pro-choice people should shot be space into not. Vote Con. Introduction: Introduction: Conclusion: Vote voting. Vote Con. Vote. Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... Introduction: Thanks to Pro for starting this debate. I found his insights about testicles especially enlightened. Vote hypotoad. http://tinyurl.com...