You can not get me to say no

I accept as long as this isn't a serious debate. THIS MEANS NOBODY VOTES, SO IT ENDS IN A TIE. Please answer the following questions with yes or no. If you say something that means no, that counts as saying no. Do you think abortion is wrong? Are you against affirmative action? Do you want a border fence? Should the death penalty be illegal? Should drugs be illegal? Are you against enviremental protection? Are you pro for estate tax? Are you againt flag burning? Do you like the flat tax plan? Are you against gay marriage? Is global warming BS? Should guns be illegal? Are you against labor unions? Are you against late term abortion? Are you against medicaid and Medicare? Are you against medical marijuana? Are you against minimum wage? Are you against the missile defense system? Are you against national health care? Do you like national retail sales tax? Do you dislike police profiling? Do you dislike president George W. Bush? Are you for progressive tax? Are you against social programs? Do you want social security? Do you want term limits? Do you want tobacco rights? Do you like United Nations? Do you like United States? Do you like the war in Afganistan? Are you against the war in Iraq? Are you against the war in Iran? Do you like the war on terrorism? Do you like water boarding? Are you againt Welfare? Are you against the Worl Trade Organization? Now, please provide me with at least three paragraphs about the issue you feel is the most important. _ _ _ Remember, if you become tired of doing what I say, you could always give up and just type no. Since this isn't a serious debate, you wouldn't lose anything. Also, if you refuse to do what I say, that's the equivilant of saying no, and therefore you lose. Please watch the following video: http://www.youtuberepeat.com... Now answer me truthfully: Did you watch the entire video? To prove you watched it, please tell me what each clip from the video had in common. By the way, you never gave the definition of no. I'll define it for you. No: To reject, refuse approval, or express disapproval of. Based on this definition, we can conclude that even hinting the word no means saying no whether you're rejecting, refusing approval, or expressing disapproval of. You must not even suggest the word no, or else you lose. I don't think you understand the significance of the word no. It's an extremely important word in the English language, as well as several other languages. It is used often, and the world would not function without the word no or an equivalent of the word no. Therefore, the word no should be taken very seriously. I'd like to go a little deeper into the word no. First of all, you can't deny (which is another word for no) that the word no or equivalents of the word no have been around practically since the beginning of life. Even simple animals have their own ways of saying no or expressing disapproval. Therefore, it is important that we recognize the importance of the word no, whether it is actually stated or expressed by other means such as body language, facial expressions, and other methods. At five in the morning it was still quite dark. The troops of the center, the reserves, and Bagration's right flank had not yet moved, but on the left flank the columns of infantry, cavalry, and artillery, which were to be the first to descend the heights to attack the French right flank and drive it into the Bohemian mountains according to plan, were already up and astir. The smoke of the campfires, into which they were throwing everything superfluous, made the eyes smart. It was cold and dark. The officers were hurriedly drinking tea and breakfasting, the soldiers, munching biscuit and beating a tattoo with their feet to warm themselves, gathering round the fires throwing into the flames the remains of sheds, chairs, tables, wheels, tubs, and everything that they did not want or could not carry away with them. Austrian column guides were moving in and out among the Russian troops and served as heralds of the advance. As soon as an Austrian officer showed himself near a commanding officer's quarters, the regiment began to move: the soldiers ran from the fires, thrust their pipes into their boots, their bags into the carts, got their muskets ready, and formed rank. The officers buttoned up their coats, buckled on their swords and pouches, and moved along the ranks shouting. The train drivers and orderlies harnessed and packed the wagons and tied on the loads. The adjutants and battalion and regimental commanders mounted, crossed themselves, gave final instructions, orders, and commissions to the baggage men who remained behind, and the monotonous tramp of thousands of feet resounded. The column moved forward without knowing where and unable, from the masses around them, the smoke and the increasing fog, to see either the place they were leaving or that to which they were going. A soldier on the march is hemmed in and borne along by his regiment as much as a sailor is by his ship. However far he has walked, whatever strange, unknown, and dangerous places he reaches, just as a sailor is always surrounded by the same decks, masts, and rigging of his ship, so the soldier always has around him the same comrades, the same ranks, the same sergeant major Ivan Mitrich, the same company dog Jack, and the same commanders. The sailor rarely cares to know the latitude in which his ship is sailing, but on the day of battle- heaven knows how and whence- a stern note of which all are conscious sounds in the moral atmosphere of an army, announcing the approach of something decisive and solemn, and awakening in the men an unusual curiosity. On the day of battle the soldiers excitedly try to get beyond the interests of their regiment, they listen intently, look about, and eagerly ask concerning what is going on around them. The fog had grown so dense that though it was growing light they could not see ten paces ahead. Bushes looked like gigantic trees and level ground like cliffs and slopes. Anywhere, on any side, one might encounter an enemy invisible ten paces off. But the columns advanced for a long time, always in the same fog, descending and ascending hills, avoiding gardens and enclosures, going over new and unknown ground, and nowhere encountering the enemy. On the contrary, the soldiers became aware that in front, behind, and on all sides, other Russian columns were moving in the same direction. Every soldier felt glad to know that to the unknown place where he was going, many more of our men were going too. "There now, the Kurskies have also gone past," was being said in the ranks. "It's wonderful what a lot of our troops have gathered, lads! Last night I looked at the campfires and there was no end of them. A regular Moscow!" Though none of the column commanders rode up to the ranks or talked to the men (the commanders, as we saw at the council of war, were out of humor and dissatisfied with the affair, and so did not exert themselves to cheer the men but merely carried out the orders), yet the troops marched gaily, as they always do when going into action, especially to an attack. But then again, it's quite possible that the word no actually existed before this time, and someone else actually invented the word millions of years before, and we just don't know it, and we just happened to end up recreating the word no. Still, my point is clear that the word no, in some way or another, as been around since the beginning of life, and if you think about it, even since the beginning of time, or even before the beginning of time. You never know. By the way, the word "know" sounds exactly like the word "no." Therefore, I believe it's fair to state that if you say "know", you also lose since if this was a verbal debate, it would sound just like "no". I look forward to my opponent's arguments. Good luck. Just 9 characters left. That was pretty close.