This debate will not be interesting.

Ahhh, more definitions. Well, unfortunatly Logical Master, all you've proven is that I am involved with this debate, not interested. For me to be interested, under the definition, I am also required for my attention to have been held or been curious about it. My attention for this debate is not held, seeing as how when I logged on I only had the intention of looking at my other debate on Yes and No, and by chance saw that I could respond to this one as well. I am not curious about it either. Curiousity means that I am eager to know or inquisitive. Both of which I am not. As I explained earlier, I had no intention of looking at this debate, so not eager, and not the least bit inquisitive. Besides, none of this matters in reference to me. The topic is not whether I am interested in this debate, or whether anyone infact is interested, but if the debate itself is interesting. For it to be uninteresting to anyone prooves that it is uninteresting, thus affirming my stance. Also note "will not". So it can be as interesting as it wants now, during the deabte, but the true outcome rest soley on those who view it as a full debate, not a 'debating'. On Hunches: you too can only rely on a hunch. You have not met me, or at least not that I know of, nor (I'll assume) have you met anyone on this site on a personal level. Thus, you can define their actions all you want and skew them to your side, but that does not make it any more true. Also, is it not the goal of all debaters to win by any means necessary? Haven't you just tried to decieve the audience and myself so that you could justify an internet source? Intent: Yes, I do intend to make it as uninteresting as I can. A burger is good but ketchup (or other condiments) makes it better. So while I am fully confident that this debate as it is is uniteresting, a little push in the right direction always helps. For instance, you'll notice that I have not made any paragraphs in this round so far. This is a tactic. The more consentrated a round is the less likely anyone will read it. Why? Because it looks difficult and boring. As a test, I'll defy anyone of the voters who has read this far into the round to make a reference in the comments section at the end to the phrase: red duck. Also Logical Master, if you, and any spectators, are as confident as I am in your argumentation skills, I'll ask that you not highlight the phrase red duck in anyway. This would behoove your argument as it would mean that someone was actually interested in this debate and read this far into it, thus providing an auto win for you. I'll be giving many more audience references to test both of our propositions, all of which I ask you not acknowledge for the same reason as red duck. This is my evidence to prove both of your challenges. If they were really interested they should have no trouble finding the six in all references I will place through out my arguments. It will mean that not only did they want to read this but that they, in fact, did. Again, it will help more than hinder your case if you don't point out the references to the onlookers. Once more, the reference is red duck. Now to my points 1) very well, I agree. 2) Again, you didn't prove interest, just dedication, which as I explained are not the same thing. Furthermore, because I am me, I know that in no scale of interest am I interested. And again, even if I was, that does not prove anything about the debate, only me. 3) You can be all you want. I don't care, it doesn't reflect the debate, only your hobbies. 4) And another time, I don't matter, you don't matter, the debate matters. Even if we both are just absolutly estatic about this debate, in only reflects our actions, not the debates engagingness and attentivness to any reader. 5) quite. 6)I'm still not interested in the debate, nor have you made me, but I am amused. Not at the debate, but your tactics. Not the same thing. You can put as many random phrases in as you want, but then I'll challenge you to the same question you asked me: If this debate is ALREADY interesting as you have insisted in round one and two and if what you say is true (concerning the idea that I won't be able to make this debate uninteresting), why would you need to do this?