Whoever accepts this is a better debater than Manatee.

Con is correct that I am, in fact, a manatee. However, I'm actually an amazonian manatee, not an atlantic manatee. You can read about my species here: With that said, let's get down to business. First, it's extremely important to understand that debating requires speaking. As a manatee, I am completely unable to make any intelligent sound. Thus, competitive debate on my part is impossible! The obvious objection to this point is that debate could be through a series of messages, or perhaps even online by conversing through text. However, I do not possess any thumbs either. Thus, I have no method of communicating, which is essential to be an effective debater. Let's assume, however, that I simultaneously grew a full set of human vocal cords and thumbs. Even then, I am not intelligent enough to be an effective debater. There are two ways to support this claim. First, you can find a video of me being dumb on youtube. It's somewhere in this argument box, I'm too stupid to know where it appears. . http://www.youtube.com... Second, manatees are scientifically known to be pretty stupid, as can be confirmed on any reliable scientific website. (. http://wiki.answers.com...) Even if I were able to speak, however, I still have extremely poor argumentation. We're only a few paragraphs into my opening statement and it's already extremely easy to tear apart my first argument. This is the essence of terrible debating. My opponent will likely point this out in his next round, thus securing his place as the superior debater between the two of us. Moreover, it's not difficult to prove my terrible argumentative skills with empirical examples. Of the two debates that I have participated in, I have lost one of them. My opponent, on the other hand, has never lost a debate. Ever. The top ranking debater on this site, RoyLatham, has lost thirteen debates. How could I possibly be better than my opponent when he, in turn, is better than the best debater on this site? !But enough about me. The more important person in this debate is my opponent, since he's leagues better than me. Beyond examining my own faults, we need to understand just how good con is. First: As a banana, my opponent is an excellent orator. A quick search for "talking banana" on youtube provides numerous examples of talking bananas (. http://www.youtube.com...). Searching for "talking manatee," on the other hand, does not bring up a single video with an actual talking manatee. Clearly, my opponent possesses superior oratorical skills. Second: My opponent brings numerous unique banana benefits to the table. Livestrong. com, a leading scientific website for how to live strong, explains the numerous reasons why bananas are good. Note that none of these statements apply to manatees. They are only 110 calories. They are naturally fat and cholesterol free. They have a lot of potassium. They have a good amount of vitamin C. They also have vitamin B-6. They are a good source of manganese. They have 3g of fiber. They deliver other vitamins and nutrients. They are a great source of carbs. They are easy to digest. Third: As explained earlier, my opponent has shown himself to be a great debater. He has no losses, a feat which very few people on this site have ever accomplished. He made me doubt the validity of my own position in an acceptance round. Imagine what someone of his caliber will accomplish in the following two rounds. Back to con.