Hairdressers are stupid

The resolution, simply stated is that "hairdressers are stupid. " This is not a universal statement (that ALL hairdressers are stupid), nor would it be possible to empirically prove either the PRO or the CON for such a universal statement,[1] therefore I will attempt to prove only what the resolution requires and logically implies: that *some* hairdressers are stupid. ===> REBUTTALS <=== I'll begin by briefly refuting my opponent's points. ----> "Everybody considers hairdressers as stupid. " This is not true. Indeed, *some* people may consider *some* hairdressers to be stupid, but a such a universal statement is wholly unwarranted. ----> "Hairdressers are very imaginative" Even if it is true, this proves nothing. Andy Warhol had an IQ of 86 and was very imaginative. [8] ----> "it requires alot of effort to use sissors" No it doesn't. Pre-schoolers can use scissors. ----> "some people go to college to train for 4 years! " If it takes four years of college for someone to learn how to cut hair, it can safely be said they are not the sharpest tool in the shed. ===> ARGUMENTS <=== Stupid: adj. Characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless. [2] Hairdresser: n. One who cuts or arranges hair. [3] I have evidence directly from my opponent's profile confirming that she is a hairdresser: "Activities: i [sic] love doing hairdressing ( and if anyone truns [sic] around and says typical hairdresser i [sic] will not be happy)"[4] This quote, in addition to proving the my opponent is a hairdresser, also proves that she is stupid; the flagrant spelling and grammatical errors render it almost entirely incoherent. In her 1R argument, CON's entire opening paragraph is a massive run-on sentence. I count five independent clauses improperly linked with commas. Of the five, only one even has a coordinating conjunction! Additionally, "alot" is in fact two separate words: "a lot," and "sissors" should be spelled "scissors. " The second paragraph is barely intelligible. The word "That" is seemingly capitalized for no reason. I also count three misspellings of relatively simple words. CON has again opted to pack (three) independent clauses together like sardines in a can. To her credit, however, she at least used coordinating conjunctions this time. Finally, my opponent has participated in a total of three debates and (as of this writing) lost all of them by a unanimous vote. [5][6][7] The argumentation in them is all of similar poor quality. ----> CONCLUSION I want to emphasize that none of my arguments are intended as personal attacks. My opponent chose the topic; I am merely supporting my position. There are many more errors that are readily apparent in my opponent's arguments, but it is senseless to belabor the point. Suffice to say, it would be an insult to toddlers everywhere to say that she writes at a preschool level. Given this, her appalling win-loss record, and consistently weak argumentation, the only conclusion to be drawn is that she, a hairdresser, is indeed stupid. The resolution is AFFIRMED, thank you and vote PRO. -- References -- 1. . http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. . http://www.debate.org... (retrieved March 30th, 2010, at 10:13 AM EST) 5. . http://www.debate.org... 6. . http://www.debate.org... 7. . http://www.debate.org... 8. . http://www.tvterrorist.com...