wity fool is better than a foolish wit

I negate the resolution: wity fool is better than a foolish wit. Definitions from Oxford Dictionary: Wit-mental sharpness and inventiveness; keen intelligence. Fool-a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; an arrogant person. Better-more appropriate, advantageous, or well advised. Foolish-lacking good sense or judgment. Observations: 1. I assume my opponent word "wity" means wit used as an adjective. Debate.org has a "check your spelling link," yet Vrinda's case fails to provide any explanation or definition for the word he used, therefore we will use this observation. 2. Please note the word "a foolish wit." It can be said to only occur once because of "a". 3. A simpler meaning for wity fool: A silly person who has the potential of being smart but doesn't use it. 4. A simpler meaning for foolish wit: a mentally unintelligent action taken. 5. My opponent has provided no explanations for the resolution so I assume both teams will resort Con's Observations. NC: 1. A man who has the potential wits yet never uses it makes the wits worthless. For example a lucky and stingy man wins 5 million dollars and decides to keep in a safety box at home as a souvenir and/or for bragging rights. So what, where will that lead him to if he doesn't invest it or spend it? No where, except trouble when he's mugged or killed. Analysis: 5 mill represents potential wits he never uses. The man represents the silly fool. Wits are worthless if they aren't used. A foolish wit creates one problem, yet a clever and clean cover up can simply bury that one mistake. Therefore he ends up on a clean slate and the foolish wit has no impact to his situation. 2. Taking action is better than no action. A foolish wit is classified as an action that contains the possibility to work because when a wit has only two outcomes, foolish and successful. A wity fool just stands there without using what he has, he just allows it to happen. For example: If the U.S government knew an asteroid will collide with the earth in 6 days and the only promising action that will stop it from colliding is by sending a nuclear missile to break it into much smaller pieces so as they fall into earth the majority would simply burn before they hit the ground, thus it causes little or no catastrophe. Or they could just wait and do nothing. The government has all the equipments and resources ready to evade the disaster, yet will it just stand there and wait for their doom or do everything they can to stop it? I pretty sure if the government won't then the people will urge and force the government to take an action to prevent their doom. Through this example, I have shown action is better than no action and using a foolish wit is better than just standing there and letting it happen like a wity fool. 3. A foolish wit can be taken as a life lesson just like Aesop's fables. But a wity fool can never learn from his mistakes because he is arrogant and filled up like a cup filled with water. "How can you learn more if your wine cup's already full?-Master Jason Kim. Bottom line: you CAN LEARN from a foolish wit. (It could also aid you in some scenarios.) 4. Foolishness can later be seen as a good option. For example: Women having equal rights as me seemed ridiculous before. As time passed look where we ended up, step further into achieving democracy by allowing women to vote. The world know has seen the impacts women can create such as major scientific discoveries to aiding soldiers in war. In a similar way such foolish wits can later be seen as a success rather than regret. Attacking Pro: 1. "what is the use of such wits when one becomes foolish at the time when they are actually needed" R: Note the phrase "one become foolish" refers to a fool, not a foolish wit. I assume my opponent tries to express: what's the use of foolish wits if a fool really needs to use it. Huh? Well I hope to clear it up by combining my contention 2 & 4 (action is better than no action) and my opponents' idea=if a fool will use a foolish wit that has the possibility of either saving him or killing him. This concludes in saying a foolish wit has a 50% chance to save a life. So obviously foolish wits can successfully save people. 2. "a fool , who is deficient in judgement , sense or understanding deceives other person by his jest." R: I don't see how this is better than a foolish wit. How can a fool, lacking any sense of understanding and judgement, can deceive another by his amusements? He ought to be tricked himself. Deceiving requires wits, both foolish and successful, to cloak his intent (For example if you usually flunk tests and happen to have a genius sitting next to and during one really tough test and both of you aced a perfect score, wouldn't the teacher be curious about cheating?); judgement on who to trick; and understanding how to squeeze the most out of his time. A fool has none of these and cannot comprehend the situation, thus he cannot fall into the category of deceiving anyone. A fool needs foolish wits in order to conceal his scheme. Therefore foolish wits are better than a wity fool. In conclusion for the reasons and refutals above please vote con. I look forward towards Pro's response. Thank you for reading this lengthy argument.