There are 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street.

This round of debate has been foggy for a while now. Pro insists on finding ways around the debate rather than taking it head on. I figured that people wouldn't take it (100%) word for word and would more or less go for what it was intended. Right now I would like voters to take 1 of 2 paths, the path of the resolution word for word (and I will show how I win there), or taking it for what it was intended (and I will show how I also win there). I will begin with word for word but if you want to see the "intended" arguments, simply go down to below the dotted lines... "word for word": My opponent seems to be looking at the topic of debate and the topic of debate alone. He insists on abiding to only that and not to the rules applied. Since you have decided to look at the word for word, you will see that I still win. The topic of debate says that "There are 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street"... but my opponent has shown 6. My job as con is to prove the topic of debate false in any sort of way. So, if you have chosen to take this debate word for word, see his 6 ways of dying and see that there are not 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street, but instead, there are 6. --------------------------------------------------------------------- "intended debate": The debate was intended to be an opportunity for Pro to present multiple ways of dying and having the voters at least accept 5 of them. There were only 5 ways of dying presented in the first round and as the rules say, there can no longer be any after that. He try's to show a sixth way by having a site posted on his last speech, unfortunately, I can not get to it as I am on my school laptop and it is blocked. But to be honest, it does not matter as it was after the first speech which goes against the intended debate. Onto the specific 5 reasons presented. 1. --> Again, INSECTS DON'T "CROSS THE STREET"... if you see an insect flying while happening to be over a street, a logical person would not say that the insect is "crossing the street." There isn't any logical incentive for the insect to know what a "street" even is. 2. --> Look to the original opening of the Pro on point 2... He said, "While crossing a street, it is within the realm of possibility for a human to have a heart attack that can result in death."... There is a major difference between dying WHILE crossing the street, and something that RESULTS in death. A heart attack logically does not result in immediate death (if death ever even happens). If this is so logical, I urge my opponent to bring up precise evidence that shows that heart attacks cause immediate death. Also my opponent talks about the person being able to have a heart attack then cross the street, but if you look to the situation, you will see that it gives no before/after scenario (it isn't eating then crossing the street) it simply is crossing the street and what could happen from point A to B (logically). -At this point, I would just like to urge my voters to examine what points stand in their head, if at this time, you do not see Pro convincing you of ANY of the 5 point (especially the two I just covered) I urge you to vote Con right now (after reading his direct responses to at least be fair) but remember, you must buy 5 of his points in order to vote Pro, otherwise, you vote Con. 3. --> If your Grandpa died while crossing the street, do you honestly think that it would be because he was shot? The only logical answer (which by the way was NOT ever argued by Pro so should be thrown out) is that he got hit by a car, not shot. There is no logical proof that there was incentive for him to be shot OR that he died WHILE crossing the street. I urge you to remember Spider-man and Uncle Ben. Would you say that he "died" while driving, NO… He died while bleeding from the wound he RECEIVED from driving. This is why these heart attacks, and gun shot wounds, and assassin attacks are simply not logical, IF they logically could happen (which I personally couldn't buy if they could or not) he has no proof that it would mean that they would die immediately. Uncle Ben was shot WHILE driving; however, he did not DIE while he was driving… a clear difference. 4. --> I'm sorry, but as cool as it would be to see an assassin killing a guy while crossing the street, it is simply not logical. If this person WAS an assassin, why would he (or she which would be even cooler :P) do it in the MIDDLE OF THE STREET. What would be logical is if it was in some alley or in some room, not in the middle of the street when someone could see it happen. The difference between an assassin and a common criminal is that a criminal would be dumb enough to do that while an assassin is a lot smarter than that. You could say an assassin is (or is capable of becoming) a professional at what he/she does, a professional simply does not kill someone in the middle of the street. (and as far as it being in another country, I have never heard of assassins in a "third world country"… and in third world countries, the threat of being seen is even greater as if they are seen by the government, THEY DIE… (not to mention nobody necessarily having homes which means a lot of wondering around)) 5. --> Sure, this crossing of a street could technically be any street. HOWEVER, logically speaking, all streets are secure. I live in the middle of no where, there isn't any possible debris whatsoever. In New York City, ALL the buildings are checked for possible danger INCLUDING possible people throwing things off the edge, which is assuming that what they can throw could actually kill someone. Again, I'll bring up the grandpa example, if someone told you your grandpa died while crossing the street (I'm sorry if I have offended anyone for previous occurrences)… but anyway, do you think the occurrence for death is a big chunk of building falling on them. It simply is not logical. Even in 9/11 (again, I apologize) people weren't crossing the street when they died. Their intentions were not to cross the street but simply to get away. 6. --> Although I have already addressed this, you have to see that me seeing this is impossible and that whatever it is does not pass the rules (that you accepted) and since I am presently arguing the intended debate, you will see that you broke it, therefore this "sixth" way of "logically" dying can not be accepted. "CON has yet to prove how my reasons cannot logically occur. Furthermore, he has yet to even address as to why there aren't 5 ways of dying while crossing the street period."--> This statement is not true, I have LOGICALLY proven how these 5 ways of death do not meet the topic of debate in one way or another. After all of this, within this debate, you have to see that there are NOT 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street.