Anyone who doesn't enjoy Disney's Frozen has no place in civilized society.

In response to my point regarding some people not having computers, my opponent states that: "They could watch it with a friend or coworker. If they have neither, then their role in society would be like the sound a tree makes when it falls, but no one hears it."Suppose their friends/coworkers also lack computers? Many people make friends within the same social class. My opponent claims that Skynet cannot take over the world because all of the dates have already passed. However, my opponent forgets one key detail. Skynet can time travel. Thus we can never be guaranteed safety. Even my opponent's own source acknowledges this, saying "Both the Resistance and Skynet are actively seeking to interfere with the timeline." Or perhaps Skynet started buffering and was slowed down. I reject my opponent citing God regarding people leeching off welfare. Many poor people work, hence the title working poor. There were about 10.4 million working poor in 2011 [2]. Imagine! 10.4 million more people seeing the majesty and magic of Frozen! "Now, about 1/5 of same sex couples have children [3], and the rest went to see it to support Satan's movie that was trying to turn children gay [4]. What LGBT person wouldn't support the fight against God and heterosexuality?" How do we know all of them went to see Frozen? Maybe some were afraid to see it because they live in small towns where they would jeopardize themselves by exiting the closet, and because of the NSA, they can no longer pirate the movie. Additionally, my opponent fails to address my point regarding childless couples that are neither gay nor lesbian. These people have not seen Frozen but are both capable of rehabilitation and contributing to society. This point alone freezes my opponent's case. If my opponent did not drop this point and is referring to childless couples (or singles) when he says leeching off welfare, then he is implying that everyone without a child is a leech and parasite to society. This is obviously false. In fact, poorer people tend to have more children than richer ones, and educated women generally have fewer children than other women [3]. My opponent points out two flaws in my plan. First, he believes many people will refuse to work with someone who disagrees with them. Maybe they will. This is why they have to work for those of us who love Frozen, not with us. All of them dislike Frozen, so all of them will have no trouble working together. Secondly, my opponent points out that the misguided Frozen-haters are taking away jobs from good, Frozen-loving Americans. This is true to an extent. They are taking away undesirable jobs that most people would otherwise not want to perform, leaving the more attractive jobs for those of us with good taste in movies. It's not a loss of jobs so much as a rearranging of who gets what. For example, a CEO who dislikes Frozen could no longer be a CEO. His job would go to a Frozen-loving American, and he would become a janitor or a cleaner or a gardener or something. Thus no jobs have been lost. Additionally, this allows the rest of us more leisure time to watch Frozen. Menial tasks are often rather time-consuming, and by allowing people who dislike Frozen to perform them, we gain more time to bask in Frozen's radiance. Lastly, my opponent concedes my argument that Frozen itself teaches us to love and care for everyone. Love is an open door, and my opponent is advocating shutting that door on everyone in society who dislikes Frozen. This goes against the wishes of Frozen. We must care for these poor (unfortunate) souls and help them to see the error of their ways. After all, people who have not seen Frozen will doubtlessly love it just like we do, and those who dislike it, after some hard work and elbow grease, might just come to see the error of their ways. All hail Queen Elsa! All hail Princess Anna! All hail Frozen! [1] http://terminator.wikia.com... [2] http://www.bls.gov... [3] http://www.unfpa.org...