This debate will not be interesting.

LET ME START BY SAYING THAT ALL OF YOU SHOULD GO DOWN TO YOUR CAR DEALERSHIP AND BUY A WARTHOG: http://www.youtube.com... 1) FALSE REALITY'S IS INTERESTED. My opponent starts off by denying that he is interested in this debate. He attempts to support this claim by stating that this debate has not held his curiosity nor has his attention been held, but I have evidence to suggest otherwise. Ladies and gentleman, observe the following comment taken from the comment section in another debate: "LM, I hope these tournament debates won't get in the way of the one we're having now, it was just starting to get int....elligent. " - http://www.debate.org... One question comes to mind: If this debate hasn't held his attention or made him curious, why would he care about my tournament debates getting in the way of this debate? Why would the possibility of me not being able to continue this debate bother him? For that matter, what would prompt him to go to another one of my debates (one that has nothing to do with this debate) and mention THIS DEBATE (despite that no one brought it up beforehand). Clearly, this debate does have a hold over his attention or has at least carried his curiosity. As for not being eager to respond to this debate, my opponent posted his response one day before he was required to. If that's not eagerness to respond, I don't know what is. Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that my opponent keeps replying in his rounds. If this debate truly couldn't hold his attention in any shape or form, he'd forfeit all of his rounds. His only defense against this is that he is dedicated rather than interested in this debate, but as he has shown from the description of his intentions in this debate, he started this debate out of his own free will merely due to the fact that he was bored. So no, there was no "need involved." Rather, he started this debate simply because he WANTED to. And what do you do when you're bored? You attempt to relieve your boredom by doing something that INTEREST you. 2) ONLY ONE HAS TO BE INTERESTED. As I had warned you in the previous round, my opponent would be resorting to some deception. In this round, he attempts to impose a ridiculous burden by stating that if anyone ONE person finds this debate uninteresting, he will hence win by default. Well, let's examine his logic for this Syllogism Format: 1) The topic concerns whether or not the debate itself is interesting. 2)Therefore, for this debate to be uninteresting to anyone proves it to be uninteresting. 3) Therefore, if anyone finds this debate uninteresting, my stance will be affirmed. Clearly, the second premise is a non sequitur. Just because the topic concerns whether or not the debate itself is interesting, it doesn't mean that one person not approving of it will show that it isn't interesting. It is only logical that we go by majority to determine what is and isn't interesting. My opponent has not shown this, and according to him, one can't determine whether or not someone whom they've never met is interested. Which brings me to my next point on this issue. Since my opponent can only show that HE is uninterested in this debate, me proving that "he IS interested" or that "his evidence for showing that he was uninterested is flawed" would clearly make me the winner of this debate. 3) "WILL NOT" This is more trickery on my opponent's part as he insist that "will not" alludes to what people think of the full debate rather than the debating. Unfortunately for him, this does not help him at all. If any segment of this debate is found to be interesting, then the final outcome will be that this debate was interesting to AT LEAST some degree. And since people can read this debate at their convenience (contrary to a live debate), they shouldn't have a problem. 4) HUNCHES: I am basing my conclusion on the very words and online actions of my opponent as well as the notion that everything he has previously stated about himself is true. In other words, I don't need to personally know my opponent. Of course, if that is needed, then it goes back to my opponent's original claim about not being interested in this debate; if relying on his word isn't good enough, then it would only be logical that my opponent present empirical evidence that shows he isn't interested in this debate. Doing this is difficult but possible. This website doesn't encourage the kind of goal my opponent refers to. Proof? Observe the following words provided by the webmaster: "Open dialogue and honest debate are how great businesses ideas are created, how democracies were developed and continue to thrive, and how Debate.org came to life. " - http://www.debate.org... Notice the words "HONEST DEBATE." Furthermore, I never attempted to deceive the audience, but my opponent is free to try and prove that I have. 5) INTENT: Notice how my opponent ignores the second question I brought up. It concerned why he would be so "gung ho" in contributing to this debate and making it as uninteresting as possible. The fact that he is doing so shows that he cares about this debate. And to care about something, there has to be some level of interest involved. As I've insinuated previously, this is more evidence that he is interested. Furthermore, he talks about how he has not made any paragraphs in this round. This was all an attempt to make this debate uninteresting. Unfortunately, as I've previously suggested, there are different levels of "interesting." One can be very interested or at least somewhat interested. If the audience is interested in my rounds but not my opponent's, my opponent's effort to make this debate uninteresting will have been for naught. This also shows why my opponent's test won't prove his case (. . . although incidentally, one has already passed it). 6) MY INTEREST IN THIS DEBATE. False. My reason is valid. I helped in creating this debate and had control over the direction it went to. Not only that, but despite the way my opponent is presenting his case, I am still able to respond to each and every single point he makes. This upholds the definition of interesting for me. However, if there is need for another one of my interests from this debate, it is the very fact that he doesn't think this debate will be interesting. By definition, I knew he would only end up providing me with evidence against this notion during the remainder of this debate. On the matter of both of us being absolutely ecstatic about this debate, it does reflect the debate. Granted that only we can benefit from this, we'd be the only ones interested in this particular department. Now, if the resolution had stated "This debate will not be interesting in the eyes of audience", this would be a valid point on my opponent's part. However, without making that crucial exclusion, the interest of the debaters is fair game. As for the rest of the points created during cross examination, answering them would be superfluous since I've covered them above. However, I will answer the question my opponent made at end of his sixth point. Question:"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?" Answer: There is difference between the intent of my question and my opponent's. My question (which was followed up by another question) was used to show that he was interested in this debate. I'm interested in this debate as well and am appealing to different kinds of voters. That is why I feel the need to do it. Of course, if my opponent presents the same answer, he will only be compromising himself when it concerns the outcome of this debate. NOT A RICK ROLL VID: http://www.youtube.com...