Everyone is dying

NOTE: Quotes will be shortened to save space.I would like to take a moment to express that while I'm impressed by my opponent's usage of rhetoric, the well poisoning is not very subtle. There are clear straw man arguments put forth in order to reduce my persuasiveness, all of which I'd like to point out to my opponent for the sake of, hopefully, future improvement. For the audience, the next part of my argument can be skipped entirely.Reading Into Rhetorical Routine"I will not be rude like my opponent...as well as i"To my opponent: This was probably the poorest selection from the entire argument. The ad hominem was not very subtle and it all came off as very self-righteous. If you do plan on continuing this technique in the future, my advice would be to not start off with it. If you start off a round trying to attack the opponent's character, it will be to the detriment of your image. Perhaps slowly transition into it while still ensuring that it is subtle, much in the way that one would consider it a backhanded compliment. If you find this unsuccessful, then you could simply practice it more often or, like me, give it up altogether. Character attacks can be devastatingly effective, but it may not complement everyone's style."my opponent is saying...i am CALLOUS"Most readers will be able to see the straw man argument here due to you focusing on it so much. Rather than make it a focal point, casually mention it. Instead of "Look, my opponent called me names! Mean face!" simply breeze past it. "In this quote with my opponent calling me callous, there are various logical inconsistencies..." and so on.I will now no longer be addressing towards my opponent.Dutifully Defending My Discussed Declarations"the man Zeno...survived"I am willing to accept that none of Zeno's original work was ever recovered, but that is no excuse for not analyzing what I clearly meant to put forth. I'm certain that my opponent believes that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and told his accusers the truth in the face of consequence, even if that was only a story. I'm sure that the opposition of this debate believes that Abraham Lincoln really did tell stories all the time to soothe his listeners, even if nobody ever really recorded it. These historical landmarks and personalities are captured through people recollecting and recording instances involving said people.So, while we don't have any footage of the original event, we still know of these stories and events in History. This is the same case with Zeno. We do not have the original work, but we have people summarizing and reiterating the original work, me included. If you look at my argument, you'll find that I explained my logic. "With a continuous continuum...time would not be connected." Rather than deconstruct my logic, my opponent claims that that is not necessary because there are no documents showing that this logic came from Zeno himself. Regardless of who originally came up with the idea, an idea can still be isolated from origin and seen logically and objectively. The idea could come from someone that everyone respects, such as Mother Teresa, someone that everyone despises, such as Adolf Hitler of the Third Reich, or someone that nobody knows. How does that affect the logic? To make use of a rephrased Shakespeare quote, "What's in [an origin of an idea]? That which we call [Calculus] by any other [origin] would be [regarded] as [logical]." Does my reasoning not work out? My opponent fails to say."moving...buttttt still not relevant .""i have nothing...congrats"In the first round, the opposition says "i just want to see if anyone would debate this topic as it would be an easy win for me," making it clear that my opponent is aware of the intuitive axiom that is the argument put forth. My opponent should know that my argument will be unconventional, and with my area of study, it should come to no surprise what I used for my argument. The info is not irrelevant, but my opponent ignores it. Pro summarizes my viewpoint (sans my reasoning), "THE UNIVERSE WILL...NOT EVERYONE WILL DIE," then says that this is not true, "everyone...DIED." There's no reasoning. No facts to back it up. Essentially "Nuh uh, you're wrong!" Ignoring my reasoning altogether. If my opponent had difficulty understanding, I would have happily explained further, but Pro disregards my argument altogether. Furthermore, my opponent's solution has what's known as a non deterministic polynomial time. To prove that everyone has died, one must analyze every life rather than using logic or reasoning to solve the problem.[1] This is typically avoided in mathematics and computation and one must try one's best to always find a way to deduce the answer without having to go through every instance in a "guess and check" fashion.In conclusion, it would appear as though the argument I've constructed is still solid an unchallenged.Sources http://en.wikipedia.org...