Challenge me.

This was a terrible debate. I am not sure where the confusion came from, but one or more parties disconnected on several levels. I am going to keep this last round short. "To win this debate, perhaps my opponent could have expressed why exactly this is a problem. I don't see how debating frameworks and interpretations are an automatic loss. Perhaps my opponent could explain to me where these rules are coming from." ==I stated no rule regarding this, please do not misquote me. I was disappointed since there was no argument ABOUT THE RESOLUTION from the negative side FOR THREE ROUNDS. You have yet, and have now run out of time to post an argument. "It disappoints me that my opponent sees my two initial posts as lacking "an actual argument." I think this would have been a much better debate had we settled on a framework that created a better forum for debate. Instead, we are left with mere ignorance and a lackluster debate on the resolution." ==If you want to debate on framework, make your own resolution about that. Had you had your way, we would still be arguing about how to argue. It is only lackluster because you have not affirmed your position. "EXTEND ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS FROM THE LAST ROUND." ==If you want to call them arguments, then go ahead and extend them. They are irrelevant TO THE RESOLUTION. "--Ummm...Is this the resolution? Now it's all about legality? I thought we were debating "Resolved: United States citizens should be allowed to own firearms." This really changes things up. New definitions come in play. This is where the character limit becomes a factor. No matter how skilled of a debater I am, changing the debate is an abusive tactic that makes the debate a lot less fun." ==I did not change the resolution, and I am not using abusive tactics. I am giving reasons to affirm the resolution. I am telling you A because B and C. That is called forming an argument. "--OK, so my opponent is saying that guns should be legal to own in America because...they have the right to? This doesn't even begin to prove the resolution. Saying that we should do things because we have the right to do something is pretty ridiculous. Just because I have the right to call for a prostitute in Nevada doesn't mean I "should"." ==Apparently, my opponent values his safety as much as he values a prostitute from Nevada. If you are the same as he, vote for the negative side. "Here's what we should do: Just give everyone but military and police personnel squirt guns. That way, everyone would have guns and everyone would be happy. Think of it as being "separate but equal" or something like that. Wait...that was in the constitution at one point too, wasn't it?" ==Ah, sarcasm. I for one would not be "happy" with a squirt gun. Can a squirt gun give me protection? Can it protect my family? "--LOL...so people who aren't able to protect themselves fail as citizens? Maybe you wish that were true. Geez, it might actually be kinda nice. Unfortunately, we live in an era when people help each other when they can't fend for themselves--we don't just shoot people." ==My apologies, I fail to see the humor in this. You seriously do not understand what I am trying to say. I am not advocating "just shoot(ing) people" rather shooting as self-defense. If someone breaks into your house with a knife, and you have no gun, what are you going to do? Squirt him with your water pistol? In conclusion, my opponent has failed to bring any of his own arguments to the table, and has barely touched mine. Ladies and gentlemen, consider the final scenario I mentioned. Consider yourself as the man or woman whose house was broken into. Consider a thief with a switchblade standing by your window. Consider yourself without protection. Do you want to be that person?