Resolved: Tell others that the water will be shut off.

I'd like to also extend thanks for this has been a fun and educational debate. I look forward to having another dance like this in the future. But alas, let us first proceed with this final act. In her final round, my worthy opponent takes a big risk. Rather than deal with the multiple arguments I had presented, she ignores those and focuses on what appears to be the crux of my case. Upon observation of her round, I whole heartedly agree with my opponent on that notion that the argument she is citing is fallacious. In fact, I cannot help but marvel at how my opponent skillfully pinpointed the errors in the aforementioned argument. Her efforts ALMOST make me want to believe that I've lost this debate. However, I must regretfully inform you that there are but two crucial flaws that not only overturn her argument but conclusively seal her defeat in this debate. I will focus this round on presenting those flaws. ========================================= MY OPPONENT'S DOWNFALL PART ONE (first flaw): ========================================= 1) PRO states that my second premise is that nobody (NOT ONE) person will believe a ten year old girl, but if we look back to my very words in the previous rounds, we can see that this has not been suggested by yours truly. Observe closely: "As suggested at the end of my rhyme, telling everyone that the water will be shut off in advance would probably be pointless. -R1 "Thus, rather than attempt to battle the likely inevitable, Amy should simply go ahead and fill up the water jugs herself so that she could supply them to the likely narrow minded neighbors when the time comes. " -R1 "They'd probably think she was simply playing a game with her friend ann. " -R2 "Again, her age is one of the main reasons telling her story would most likely be unsuccessful. " -R2 When observing these statements, what do you notice is in common with them? They all speak in terms of probablity. Therefore, throughout this debate, I've been suggesting likelihood rather than speaking in absolutes. Taking that into account, what you see in PROs final round is none other than a strawman (argument developed by PRO rather than myself) version of my argument. With this noted, THE THREE BURDENS WHICH PRO SET UP ARE TO BE DISMISSED SINCE THEY RELY ON AN ARGUMENT WHICH I NEVER PRODUCED. 2) Furthermore, PRO suggest that even if one person will be willing to believe AMY, she should try to warn others, yet this once more goes back to the moralist which my opponent had advocated and brought up in round 1. If merely 1 one person listens to Amy, merely one person is guarenteed to have water. On the other hand, my plan for Amy eliminates the matter of the neighborhood having to buy into Amy's uncanny story and insures everyone gets water. Thus, by Mill's belief, happiness for the most people will more likely come from Amy not telling anyone about her story and filling up water jugs herself than it would from Amy gambling on people believing her despite the circumstances. To quickly highlight the matter of Santa Claus and the Boogey man, I was perhaps being a bit extreme, but the point still remains. Kids are typically immature and like to emulate fiction (which is often due to video games or TV). ============================================= MY OPPONENT'S DOWNFALL PART TWO (second flaw): ============================================= What my opponent is forgetting is that I didn't just provide one reason as to why it was likely that Amy's attempts would be unsuccessful; I provided two reasons. Ladies and gentleman, please observe my own words presented previously: "Even me being 18, I doubt I'd be able to convince my community to act in advance on this without solid evidence. Which brings me to my next point. " This is further proof that my opponent's presentation of my case is simply straw man. Notice how I go into an argument that neglects the matter of a 10 year olds credibility (it must also be noted that my opponent has yet to counter this "even if" argument) as I cite why a typical legal adult would have trouble persuading the neighborhood based on self-testimony alone. ================ WHY TO VOTE CON ================ 1) The argument PRO is attacking in R3 is not my argument, but rather an argument which PRO created on her own. Thus, not only has she not countered my argument, but the rules which she applied to the aforementioned argument are to go overlooked since they only apply to the argument she created. 2) I didn't just discuss a child's credibility when explaining why it would be unlikely that the neighborhood would believe Amy. I also pointed out that even as a typical adult, it would take more than self testimony to persuade the neighborhood. In this case, Amy would not need sufficient evidence. As I've pointed out, getting this evidence would be next to impossible within her time period (which is up by the afternoon). PRO ignores this argument. 3) PRO didn't argue that I was generalizing in the previous round. Her previous response was basically summed up as "Amy could be sincere to avoid prejudice against her age. " Since she hasn't responded to my rebuttal for this argument, you have no choice but to consider it conceded to. The same applies for the rest of the arguments I had made in the previous round. 4) I've shown that both Kant and Mill's philosophy favor my method moreso than they could favor my opponent's method. Once more, both of these philosophers are philosophers which PRO has claimed to uphold. Taking the entire debate into consideration, not only have I dismantled PRO's objections one by one, but I've also shown that it would be the most logical decision for Amy to withhold her knowledge of the water being shut off and fill up jugs for the neighborhood on her own. Thanks for the debate.