Government should subsidize my poetic life

I'll provide quick rebuttals in the same format that my opponent presented them:1. It doesn't matter what type of music he sang, it does nothing to negate my point that his form of art was different from the form you wish to support. It's still subject to the fallacies I've shared in my previous round and ultimately stands remaining as a poor example to use and one that does nothing to affirm your position in support of the resolution at hand. 2. I resent that my opponent is relying on Ad Hominem attacks [1] in an attempt to fool the audience into supporting his outlandish and unproven spending budget. Calling me a cheap-skate when there is no justification for such an accusation is offensive at worst, and a moot point which holds no ground in this debate at best.[1] http://www.nizkor.org...I'd also like to point out to the audience that this latest personal attack brings his total amount of fallacies committed in this debate to seven. I've yet to see any rebuttals for each of those fallacies either. My opponent continuously fails to understand the errors within his own argument as evidenced by this latest dependence on yet another fallacy. I highly suspect my opponent is doing nothing more than trolling at this point.3. My opponent claims that I committed the Ad Hominem fallacy right after he commits it himself. Clearly he fails to understand what Ad Hom really is - which is defined above in the link I cited. He accused me of an Ad Hom attack in regards to cat fashion. The problem with his accusation is that I never personally attacked him over such a thing. I merely said that such a cost is unreasonable, which is clear to anyone who wishes to scroll back to the previous round, and for him to prove that he actually spends money on that. Nowhere is there an Ad Hom attack committed by me, and I hope the audience will realize that after seeing this line of argumentation and checking for themselves by scrolling back to my previous round. Furthermore, I never accused Pro of "money laundering" so this entire line of argumentation is moot and holds no bearing in this debate whatsoever. My opponent states he "dislikes the fact that I accused him of criminal activity" yet I never did such a thing. I believe, again, that this is a case of Pro trolling. Anyone can scroll up to my previous round and see that I never made such an accusation. 4. My opponent had two #3's, so I've corrected my response to the second #3 by changing it to the proper number which is 4. My opponent spends this line of argumentation attempting to justify the cost of $120 a month on Anime. He accuses me of using torrents due to there being no real avenues to get alot of Anime aside from some form of method he uses which costs that much. Here are some problems with this, for starters - he still hasn't said exactly how it costs so much. He did attempt to justify it by quoting the price for the first 100 episodes of SpongeBob Squarepants which is $52.49 (although he does not cite any reference thus we can't know for sure that this is the actual price) but fails to realize that SBSP is not anime, but actually a cartoon. The difference mostly lies in the country of origin that the animated series is from. Anime is very different in visual presentation than SBSP. Secondly, there is a video app known as Crunchyroll [2] which goes for the same price as Netflix - $7 a month, and has over 200 anime shows all streaming and updated in real time with new episodes as of the summer of 2011. One can only imagine how many more shows it has on it now. I am also a current subscriber of the service and can personally attest that it has more than enough anime and for a very decent price. It is quite literally the Netflix of Anime. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...Of course, this entire line of argumentation does nothing for Pro in regards to the actual resolution. He is merely presenting rebuttals for the most minor points of the entire debate due to his inability to overcome the other challenges I've presented. 5. My opponent closes this round by asking for leniency due to his "barely graduating" high-school equivalent in terms of knowledge. This is unacceptable. Not only has Pro trolled a majority of this debate, but he has also left countless challenges unanswered or without rebuttals. He has committed 7 different fallacies, while falsely accusing me of accusations that I never made in the first place! I find it most amusing how my opponent asks for leniency but then continues trolling right afterwards. It's an offensive display of conduct on his part and something which I hope the audience takes into consideration. In closing, My opponent has dropped several of my challenges raised in previous rounds, concedes that he could have presented his arguments better, committed more than 5 fallacies while failing to acknowledge any of them in later rounds, and spent a majority of our time with trolling arguments and accusations. Due to Pro's inability to overcome my challenges, I believe it is evident that he failed to maintain his burden of proof and thus loses this debate. I only hope the audience also sees it this way. Thank you.