Isn't it enough to be careful frm my side not to stand in the middle of the busy roadbut on footpath

<<"Firstly, I have already patented a word "stupid" so there is no use using the word again." I was using quotes from your own "argument" you did not patent it. If that were true then I patented "A wise man once said, do not stand near swamps. You should have followed his words. You can not infer that he has a low I.Q because as you stated, You have never seen him before." and you are plagiarizing me. Horrible logic.>> By patenting I mean that I have used it before you did. You said the whole sentence but the words used in it where patented first by me. Plagiarizing you? Are you even worth being plagiarized? HAHAHA! ROFL-LOL! :D :D. You do not even have anything worth being plagiarized. Yes, you are horrible and so are your reasons. <<" the definition of wise is irrational" Wise - having or showing wisdom or knowledge usually from learning or experiencing many things [1] You provided no evidence to show that the definition of wise is irrational.>> I said that, "if that is wise then the definition of wise is irrational and stupid is rational.". I used the word, "IF". Do you know what the word IF means as you boast too much about English? I showed the word "if" as evidence but even if you cannot see the proof then you are blind and it is not my fault that you cannot identify the evidence. <<"My opponent is careless, rash and stupid." Conduct point. And you did not provide any proof.>> Deserving conduct for you. And it is not my fault that you cannot see the evidence of your rashness. <<"The word, "haha" is in the dictionary" According to the link provided by my opponent, [2] , the word "haha" does not exist. It is in the form of ha-ha, and therefore "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" does not exist. My opponent is making up words. With that said, he states that I am "careless, rash and stupid." "She is a eunuch who is afraid of extensive research. The word, "haha" is in the dictionary if she spends some effort and goes to the site http://dictionary.reference.com......... " For one thing, my opponent states that I am a she, and therefore, using his own words against him, I say that my opponent is "afraid of extensive research" including pressing on my name, stating toaMATT26, and seeing that Gender : Male. Another addition to prove "haha" does not exist, by pressing [check your spelling] at the bottom of the argument text, it also showed that haha is not a word. By saying that I did not do extensive research, I just proved that "haha" in fact does not exist. I am sorry for my opponent's ignorance and hope he puts a serious argument next round in this useless debate.>> The word does exist and it was explained as a noun and interjection by the definition, "used as an exclamation or representation of laughter, as in expressing amusement or derision". And she has forgot that many words after HAHA as HAHAHAHAHA is an interjection of continuous laughter and so does the word "rofl" and "lol". She does not know that just by selecting the "male" option in the registration or sign up page does not make her a male and I also regarded her as a eunuch and a transgender. The word "Haha" does not exist in MS Word but so does "infront", Kuala "Lampur " (the capital of Malaysia) etc. which are also words but not fed in MS Word software or either nouns, now every noun cannot be fed in the MS Word software and so these words are also nouns. I ignore baseless things like what you said so do not blame me. <<"Debating is not her cup of tea." That may be true, but my opponent provides no evidence. The picture below [3] shows my debate statistics on debate.org. I do not feel the need to brag, but yes indeed, out of 25 debates I have won 22, and three recently finished and are in the voting period. By saying that once again, I am a female, and that I am not good at debating, you are inferring that every 98.85% and below are even worse. Now, to your debate statistics... ">> You were playing with amateurs until now. That is why the statistics has pulled wool in your eyes. Statistics are not qualitative. I am new that is why my percentile is still not reached the marked. A mouse scaring an ant does not infer that she can fight with a lion. <<"she is just like the other girls who grows breasts on her chest " My opponent shows no evidence that shows I am a female and that I grow breasts on my chest. My opponent's rudeness will cost him a conduct point.>> If she is blind then I cannot help that she cannot see the evidence and neither it"s my fault. What about my opponent"s uncouth behavior where she baselessly told me that I was wrong in standing near the swamp which amounts to defamation? Is that not good enough for provocation? Conduct point should also be for defamation by throwing baseless allegations for which my opponent can be imprisoned rigorously. <<"Preferably, she should only stay at home, play with dolls and learn to cook" My opponent provides no evidence that I ever left my home, and that I do not play with dolls. Every of my opponent's statements are either rude, false, or just don't make sense.>> So, this opponent has herself proved that she is female and does not leave home at all. After all, if she was male then she would have pointed out the same again. As regards for the home, my sentence meant that she should not leave home if she is inside home and if outside then she should return home and stay there. However, she indirectly agreed that she stays at home and never leaves home, which proves that she is a eunuch or a girl as only girls stay at home and plays with dolls. That itself is evident by her statements as she protested that there is no evidence provided that she does not play with dolls instead of why she should play with dolls. No matter how many evidences you give, this eunuch who is my opponent does not understand the meaning and is unable to identify evidences because of her foolishness. <<"I understand from the fact that she is not an IT literate and has poor knowledge of Information Technology, that is why in frustration she is using the knowledge of English but I challenge her knowledge of IT in response to her challenging my English grammar. She has ignored the fact that it is prestigious and more beneficial to know about IT than to know about English as even those like Copernicus, Galileo etc did not know English but where smarter than Shakespeare who knew English very well. Her actions just prove the idiom for her in my language where a frustrated cat scratches the pillar when she is unable to catch mice. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROFL-LOL!! :D :D." The entire thing does not have any relevance to...">> YOUR POINTS ARE MORE USELESS AND WORTHLESS THAN MINE IN THAT CASE. I asked you why I can't stand near the swamp and you fave decision like judge rather than proving. It can also be possible that this eunuch has understood this paragraph and is unable to respond because she has ran out of words and to save herself from humiliation she is feigning that she did not understand what I said. The topic of the debate was that whether I was wrong or not in standing near the swamp where the school van splashed me, and if I am opting for debating "for" the topic, then it means that I hold myself in the right position for standing near the swamp. She cannot understand the point of the debate due to her foolishness so it is not my fault. I give counter sites to prove that debates are not necessarily statements but questions too, infact debates are mostly questions but thanks to the ignorance of my opponent who does not even know the basics of the debate and just by winning against amateurs who are more stupid like her thinks that she is the best in debating which is nothing but her overconfidence. 1.http://www.debate.org... 2.http://www.debate.org... 3.http://www.debate.org...