The story challenge

His rules were: “Just keep the story going”. He failed to keep my story “going”. Pro also claims that I was “slandering”. However, this is not true. I was merely pointing out that Pro did not abide his own rules. Here is a definition of “slander” to make it clear [1]: Slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report “I am willing to bet in the final round he will say something along the lines of:Pro has failed to continue the story the way I wanted it to go. Herr durr. Vote Con. *insert communist veiws here*. Pro is a troll” Whether I have communist views are totally unrelated to the topic of this debate. Second note, I am utterly bewildered that Pro thinks I will address him as a “troll”. This is an illogical conclusion. “Not only this but con has copied this from another source that was not his own. This is horrible! See here:. http://www.nobelprize.org...... ” Pro has been mistaken. I have only borrowed part of the story and the rest of it was original. As can be seen from the provided source: “In March the gypsies returned. This time they brought a telescope and a magnifying glass the size of a drum, which they exhibited as the latest discovery of the Jews of Amsterdam. ” This was the continuation from the provided source. My story, however goes as follows: “This time, the gypsies introduced to the village their new invention that they called the "fireworks". ” Telescopes VS fireworks? I’d like to see the similarities please. The two main characters that my story revolves around are Jose Arcadio Buendia and his wife Ursula Iguaran. The pope was also an important character that probably should have been mentioned. However, Pro’s characters include Moola, Mungi, Ite, Tate, Iktomi, Skan just to name a few. His story is directly related to gods, while my story is only hinting the existence of gods. I see no logical reason to think that Pro’s continuation could possibly be continued from mine. “I await pro to continue the story from round 3. If he does not, it should be considered a forfit. ” Pro should be the one who is continuing my story. But alas, this is the concluding argument for this debate, meaning it is impossible. It will not be considered a forfeit because Pro failed to abide to his own rules, which I agreed upon. “And for anyone who thinks I am racist or something for thinking Con would put forward communist ideas, according to his account, his ideaology is communist. He also supports the marajuana party, so I could say he smokes, as the kool kats would say, pot. Vote pro, despite what lies con gives, no matter how misleading. ” I am racist because I have communist ideas? Really? I support the marijuana party simply because I believe that our country deserves free-will. That is not to say that I do smoke “pot”. Pro wants some cheap votes because of the “lies” that I give. I have not provided lies, therefore I win this debate. I have given logical reasons as to why CON wins this debate. I doubt Pro even bothered to read my entire story because he would have spotted the clear difference between the source he provided. “I liek bacon. I give u bacon. Is good” (a few spelling errors to note) I like bacon too, but how is this related to the topic? Bacon is not directly related to the stories that were put forth. References: . http://dictionary.reference.com...