One could logically follow a majority of these guidelines

===================== Overview (My General Argument) ===================== To open, I'll point out that I claimed in my last speech that my opponent was using 3 illogical arguments continually to justify multiple claims. They were: 1. For these guidelines to be logical, one must follow every single one. 2. For these guidelines to be logical, they must all be followed simultaneously. 3. For these guidelines to be logical, they must always be the best option. Rather than arguing that these were logical arguments, my opponent says that they are straw men, or arguments that he hadn't actually made (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). That's fine. .. except that he uses these arguments yet again in his next speech without ever rebutting the fact that they are logical fallacies. I'll point them out where he uses them as I go along. ========= Contradictions ========= A. Apply the overview he's conceded to that not being able to do all of these actions at the same time is irrelevant. B. "They are foolish things to do" 1. My opponent never disproves that venting your anger in a healthy way is good. He ignores it. He also concedes that remaining calm is good. He's already conceded that they can both be true, thus not contradictory. 2. Apply the overview. He is using those logical fallacies yet again. They need not be the BEST option, and they need not be performed simultaneously. There goes his contradiction. C. I already conceded that "the only safe place is my loving arms" is a false statement (and its truth is irrelevant, as per Rule 3. ) This contradiction is based on the assumption that the statement is true, though we agree that it isn't. All my argument says is that Christianity has health benefits, not that it is the only route to health. =============== His General Arguments =============== A. Again, refer to the overview. He doesn't deny that the statement 'these guidelines must always be the best option' is illogical in his last speech, just that he has never said it. What point is he making here, but that there might be better options? B. "Running and screaming would certainly lead to death, and be futile" It's my opponents job to prove points like this, not just ignore my evidence and appeal to the logic of the judge. ========= Contradictions ========= 1. Ditch His argument last round was that ditches were dangerous based on faulty evidence that actually said that culverts were dangerous. I pointed this out, as well as the fact that the source he used actually says ditches are safe. He is responding by ignoring that source and posting the image of a wet ditch (yes, that's the entirety of his source). Extend his original source, which certainly takes out this new argument. Tetanus 93% of people are vaccinated. (. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com...) Reduce the remaining 7% to the amount of that 7% who ever encounter tornadoes. Reduce that amount further to the amount that actually have open wounds at the time of the tornado. Finally, take that amount, and reduce it to the amount whose open wounds actually come into contact with tetanus infected soil. You have a pretty darn low risk factor, it's safe to assume. --- 2. Calm Again, my opponent concedes this. I'll address his arguments against 4 & 8 when I come to them. --- 3. Warning Shots He advocates tornado sirens instead of warning shots. There is no reason that the two are mutually exclusive. A tornado siren may be broken. Some people might take a gun shot more seriously than an annoying, wailing siren. There is certainly a potential to save lives, large or small. He doesn't actually extend ANY HARMS AT ALL of firing these warning shots. He made some shoddy ones in his 1st rebuttal which I refuted. He then dropped them in his last speech. You can consider them null and void. My opponent is just playing defense here and trying to mitigate the benefits. He doesn't deny the fact that it's all benefit and no harm; he just claims that the benefits are small. No cost, all benefit, clearly logical. --- 4. Rage on the Roof Refer to my argument against his contradictions and the overview in particular. His only argument is based on his admittedly faulty assumption that these guidelines must be followed simultaneously. It is possible for the best course of action to be staying calm on some days. It is possible for the best course of action to be venting anger on other days. Staying calm at one point doesn't preclude one from venting anger on others. My opponent does give any harms of either; I don't see why anybody couldn't do both at separate times for maximum benefits. --- 5. Prevention There are a few faulty assumptions he makes. A. "One cannot logically attempt to prevent tornadoes before they happen. " It would not defy the laws of physics to do so. It isn't logically impossible. We simply can't prevent them with our current technology. It can be attempted. B. "Attempts to do so will only result in failure, leading to frustration and depression. " Many athletes are told to give 110% of their current ability (presently impossible. ) Rather than getting depressed and committing suicide as my opponent would have you believe, this is a call to improve that many athletes meet. Why this would lead to depression instead is up to my opponent to prove. C. "I do not link this to mass suicide, or even create a slippery slope - suicide rates will just increase because of this. " So it's just suicide instead of mass suicide, the rest of your unwarranted chain of events remains: single impossible claim --> confusion --> frustration --> stress --> depression --> rage spirals --> suicide --- 6. Christianity A. "People who literally interpret the command will perform suicide to be with God. " I. This is unwarranted. II. My original interpretation that guideline 6 tells people to convert to Christianity, not commit suicide, wasn't refuted. III. My opponent clearly doesn't believe this. The rest of his attacks are against Christianity, not suicide. B. This is a GUIDEline, not a rule. It doesn't FORCE anybody to change beliefs any more than a billboard that says "Got Jesus? " C. He double turns his arguments He says: I. There is no warrant for 'divine protection' being real. II. We should all have different religions to ensure that someone gets divine protection. D. He AGAIN ignores the crux of my point, which is that Christianity has measured health benefits, regardless of whether there is divine protection. I'd presume that this is because he knows it is true. --- 7. Basements It seems to me that my opponent just threw out this 2 sentence argument for lack of anything legitimate to say against my point. It doesn't even have anything to do with basements or basements' basements. He's just restating his 3rd 'contradiction' for lack of a better argument. Anyways, it's based on the statement "the only safe place is my loving arms" which we've both agreed isn't true, so you can drop it right there, same as his 3rd supposed contradiction. --- 8. Run like hell! A. He drops the clear benefits of point and screaming a 2nd time. It's getting annoying how he simply ignores all of my most clear arguments. B. He says the fact that "one cannot outrun a tornado" means running = sure death. However, running isn't necessarily "trying to outrun. " I could run like hell prior to hiding (while pointing and screaming) to warn people. I could run like hell to a ditch or my basement's basement. Running is certainly a good form of locomotion. C. He doesn't actually address the 'threefold benefits,' just that running will inevitably lead to death. People have run for shelter and survived. This clearly isn't true, so my 3 benefits still apply. ====== Summary ====== He may win one of these points. He certainly can't win 4 of them!