Nearly all men can exist in adversary bt if you want to check a man's true character, give him power

"My adversary have not given any argument, no rebuttals only suggestions without proof". My reply clearly contains rebuttals, you are merely choosing not to acknowledge the points raised. You are also yet to provide any proof that your resolution is right. I challenged you as to if absolute power is attainable. If you cannot prove it is you have already lost as your resolution is n empty statement. "It's because of that weapon which they are carrying that will make them behave anyhow. "So if I have a gun I must kill or rob a bank? As I raised before, it is the persons choice what they do with that tool. It is not evidence it corrupted them that they used it to rob a bank or shoot somebody. If you where stabbed with a pen was it the power of the pen that corrupted the person and made them act in that way. . "power shows a man's true characterr"I would say it is often the opposite, people in, say, political power have to be diplomatic and often hide their beliefs and feelings as part of the job. Power is mostly provided within a specific job role, though there are numerous other forms. "Lord Acton said '"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men. "' www. acton. org""Power tends to corrupt" is clearly a wild generalisation and you have not shown this to be true, merely stated my own opening quote back to me. "absolute power corrupts absolutely" again this is without any proof. For each example of corrupt people with power there is an example of non corrupt people. A person being absolute in their corruption is a grand claim, even the worst people are unlikely to be corrupt in every aspect of their life. This is again a generalisation and not realistic. Remember I just need to reasonably refute your claim, not disprove it. The BOP lies with you as you are making the claim. "What am saying in essence is this, absolute power corrupts. It seems like my opponent don't understand this phrase. "I do understand the phrase, I also understand you are just repeatedly making unsubstantiated claims in the form of a source I provided. . The Stanford prison experiment is also not evidence of corruption as it did not assess the participants as non corrupt before the experiment started. It is again no evidence for your resolution, it is likely that the people just increased in behaving in the way they already did. All humans are corrupt to some degree, no one is perfect after all. Power may make abusive people more able to harm others. It does not mean power corrupted them. "Please readers, am trying to give a historical explanation of the motion as my opponent"You have not explained why you are right nor are you even tried to explain why historically, you have just copy pasted some quotes from wikipedia. "Perhaps access to power makes one more prone to violate the rights and freedoms of others, more vicious, and so on. "I think you are getting what I mean now, yes, power did not corrupt them, it enabled present traits to be more harmful. "Now power can equally show that one is good"Saying that disproves your absolute power corrupts point unless you also say absolute power makes people absolutely good also. Both ways it is unlikely to be true. "I meant by 'turning into a fly' now what I mean there is that she turned to be uncontrolable. "To be honest I still do not really understand that, I suppose a fly is uncontrollable though that is not a common analogy, or at least one I have heard before. Not that that invalidates it in any way I suppose. "absolute power corrupts, a man's true character can be determined if you give him power"At this point I will have no opportunity to refute my opponent if indeed they do provide any evidence, I would ask that no new arguments are put forward only rebuttals to the points made in mine. Many thanks to my opponent for the debate.