Those who support bull fighting are backwards and ignorent, or simply selfish and cruel. Or all.

Preface:As this is the final round, I shall present only counter-cases. I’ll point out that Pro has only used a single source in all his cases, and it is a book and page number. Counter-Case Summarization: Pro attempts to state that everyone is ignorant and selfish. However he must show that those who support bullfighting are substantially more so enough to qualify as uniquely ignorant or selfish. Counter: Pro starts by pointing out his mistake in the resolution. However the resolution still stands as is. He must show those who support bullfighting are overwhelmingly more so than normal. Pro states everyone fits into “ignorant”, but he fails to show how bullfight supporters are more so as to warrant the title when we wouldn’t normally title everyone as such. He says that that these people are inherently more selfish because they use animals for fun. However wrestling (and UFC) is an incredibly popular sport. {1/2} Many of our most popular sports are by nature aggressive {3/4} He says it is “selfish” by definition (saying “indisputable”), however every single thing we do can be considered selfish. Pro takes a concept (violence) that seems literally built into our being, and says enjoying it makes one more selfish than the average person. He attacks me for listing people I’ve never met, but he generalizes an entire demographic. He claims I can’t use these people as examples. Except I can. As I’ve stated I need not prove the point for everyone, simply that we cannot generalize such a group. He attacks the subjectivity of morality in historical cultures by saying that everyone who doesn’t agree with him is selfish. People who support bullfighting don’t necessarily support slavery. Does that make them less selfish than aristotle? If so, then how are we determining overall selfishness? Not based off single variables which may only be minor (again, Pro has to force his generalizations on anyone who even remotely likes this). We base it off an overall view of their being. “Aristotle was cleverer than I, but he was still more ignorant to mankind if he believes slavery is acceptable, because he has not been brought up around the same, more 'socially forward', philosophies that I have been brought up around. “ There are multiple problems here. Firstly he contradicts himself, calling someone ignorant, and clever at the same time. But the biggest sin here is the crippling Presentism. {5} There is no such thing as “socially forward”. There is what Pro thinks is right, and what he thinks is wrong. And it is being thrown over the whole of civilization. Pro states that people are inherently good natured, and yet shows this isn’t true by listing the immense number of horrible things we have done on a regular basis. He then implies that bullfighting is the worst on the list. And that of all those things, it is that one act that makes one truly bad. He implies we can’t even see animal cruelty (a horrible misconception on his part), and of course claims we are ignorant because we don’t see things his way (which could instead show ignorance on his part). I’ll remind Pro here that smooth-talking the Voters by saying they fit into his clique of “morally better” people is not proper etiquette in a debate.I will not even go into detail on how the remainder of this paragraph is a horrifying example of pros “moral superiority”, claiming that every other culture is “less enlightened” because they are not in line with him. He claims that the best people supported horrible things. Again, this shows that most people support bad things. Pro has to show a distinct enough increase in ignorance and selfishness in order to affirm the resolution. Pro spends the next paragraph trying to present an absolute that these acts are selfish. Claiming there are no grey areas. Yet he doesn’t actually show how this is the case. As I’ve stated, violence is a natural aspect of our culture, and thus supporting it is simply “normal” selfishness, not an enhanced selfishness that warrants a special title of selfish. In his next paragraph (“I think the real issue….”), he presents what is more a speech then a real presentation of fact to support his case. Simply going back to that “everyone is ignorant” argument. He says it doesn’t need referencing that we are aren’t aware of animals (he includes women’s rights in the list of examples. Are women animals?) capacity, yet most people will state that animals are smarter than we know. He must present real evidence that this is the case. Most people know full well that animals have feelings. They still find it acceptable. It doesn’t make them ignorant. It simply means that they have a different view from Pro. And to Pro this means they are ignorant and selfish. After this Pro shows cultural relativism at work stating that many Europeans don’t like bullfighting because they don’t understand it. This shows the non-supporters to be ignorant. But as these Europeans agree with Pro, he considers them “socially-forward”. “They support animal cruelty when it comes to food, but its easy to condemn others, and particularly others from another country. ” Pro proves my case right here. He is so quick to condemn others of a different culture, and calls them “ignorant”, when the only one fitting that definition is the guy performing a sweeping generalization of an entire demographic. He states the Spaniards are blind because of a bias in how they are raised. Yet Pro implies himself to be a vegan (and I’m a cook. I cut and burn your chickens and cows. Mwahaha), which shows himself to have bias. Everyone has bias. He ends (other than the P.S.) by saying he used to eat meat which means nothing. This is not proper evidence. It’s a simply Appeal. It has no benefit to his case. However this quote does: “I think it's much the same with bull fighting, people either don't think it's wrong (ignorance) or know its wrong and do it anyway (selfish)” Pro says they are either ignorant or selfish. However he must show they fit both aspects of a category, not just one. In failing to do so, Pro fails the resolution. Conclusion: Pro attempts to shrug off my cases by saying that everyone is ignorant and selfish. As I’ve stated, he must show that the subject group are overwhelmingly more so enough to warrant being titled as such whereas the average person wouldn’t carry the title. He fails to do so entirely, neglecting that there are little (if any) variables large enough to single handedly warrant these distinctions. Pro fails to show how a detailed analysis of a persons being shows a distinct increase in Ignorance or selfishness in correlation with support for bullfighting. I however have prior shown proof that this distinction is not so apparent. He spends much of his time with presentisms and claims of moral superiority. Lastly, Pro fails to show that supporting bullfighting actually shows a lack of information (as they are quite aware of the animals mental capacity) Sources: http://tny.cz... Counter-Case II: P.S Summarization: Pro puts a few “P.S”’s after his arguments. I shall deal with them here. Counter: Pro tries to argue against a conduct point. He claims I’ve insulted him with the “perspective” remark. “And “philosophical perspective” is a meaningless statement. This is simply an attempt to add justification to his morality.” This is not insulting. It’s an argument. I feel Pro is simply upset that one would question the superiority of his vegan morality. In the end, he ends the “PS” by claiming I simply don’t understand it. Again, those who don’t agree with him don’t have explanations or proper rationalization. We are simply “Ignorant”. Because we have a different view. “PPS”. Here Pro actually insults me saying I am “Struggling” with this concept. He shoots himself in the foot calling it “spiritual”. This is not a religious debate. Not everyone believes there is a “spiritual” aspect to things. For those of us who use something other than an undefinable metaphysical principle, we don’t in fact consider it to be true intelligence. He source Steve Covey, yet his source is a book we can’t all read (nor are we guaranteed the page number are the same if we could). Regardless of the source, Steves quote again present a metaphysical “spiritual” concept, calling it the most “fundamental”. This is not backed by any scholarly study, and is purely an opinion. He ends with a remark about “forwardness” in society (again, presentism), and claims animal-cruelty is the next big step. No gay rights, or equality for women and Races in third world countries. No, it’s animals. This debate however is not about animal cruelty. It’s about the people who support bullfighting. He finishes by again saying those who aren’t in line with his opinion are ignorant, based off some metaphysical morality that any one can define. Those who support bullfighting could claim they are right due to some “spiritual morality” (how do you argue against that?). How would Pro say that are wrong? He Can’t. Conclusion: Pro spends this section trying to argue that I should be denied points (take a look at his opening post however). He spends it trying to cast support under some self defined spiritual morality that ultimately doesn’t work for many, especially in the increasingly secular Europe. Closing Statement Pro has failed to squarely show that people are actually lacking of knowledge, or unusually more selfish then everyone else due simply due to support for bullfighting (support being a broad sprectum). He instead spends his time saying that everyone is bad if they don't share his morality, in the end justifying it as objective through calling it "spiritual intellect". This is not acceptable. Pro has failed to affirm the resolution as I stated necessary (a matter Pro did not argue against), dropping entirely the aspects of "backwords" or "cruel", therefore failing to fit the subject into a full category, as he must. In failing to do so, he fails the resolution. ==Unitomic==