What is Undesirable May Very Well Be Appropriate

I thank CON for engaging in a very constructive debate. I think it's been an excellent discussion on the resolution and how it was structured. In the end, perhaps what CON exposed more than anything else is the artificiality of this exercise, which is something I readily acknowledge. The artificiality is meant to isolate a specific aspect of desirability while excluding other aspects in order to analyze what is isolated.For my final round I will do a line-by-line rebuttal and proffer closing comments.Rebuttal"Well, I still hold strong to my arguments, as prudence is very much not excluded from this debate, nor was it's exclusion part of the terms. It's just not a part of of the definition of desirable, and I have shown how it still applies using only the remaining definition. If prudence were excluded from this debate, my opponent would not be using prudence to justify his position." 1) Indeed prudence is not part of the definition of desirable, and because it is not, it cannot be applied to the remaining definition.2) Prudence is NOT excluded from the entire debate, it is ONLY excluded from the definition of desirability.---"Let's look back for a moment at what Pro says near the start of Round 2: ""What my opponent will probably aim to do, which I expected, would be to focus on how anything that is prudent is desirable. I fully agree with this, and I don't consider such a statement to be debatable. Furthermore, I may still fully agree with such an assertion, and still prove my position in this debate to be fully sound and valid on a logical basis.""The underlined statement is true, but ONLY by showing that something imprudent can be both undesirable and appropriate." This is simply not true. I've proved that given the restrictions placed upon the definition of desirability (that prudence is excluded), that something can be undesirable, prudent, and appropriate, i.e. working out, which for 3 rounds now my opponent has failed to address or even acknowledge.---"If Pro wants prudency excluded from this debate, then he must show why something can be undesirable yet appropriate,excluding any possible prudence. (Using prudence as justification IS NOT excluding prudence)"Prudency is not excluded from the debate...it is excluded from the definition of desirability.ConclusionUnfortunately, this debate was probably a bit too much of a tedious semantics exercise.To sum up:1) I fully agree that something cannot be undesirable, imprudent, and appropriate, nor can something be desirable, prudent, and inappropriate. I can agree to this and still fulfill BoP for this resolution, which I have through the working out example, which for this debate is undesirable, prudent, and appropriate.2) I believe CON's main misinterpretation is thinking that prudence is completely excluded from this debate. No, it is simply excluded from any association with desirability.3) I've repeatedly reminded audiences that my simple example of working out is enough to meet BoP, as it is indeed undesirable yet appropriate. CON never addressed this simple example, and thus I have thus upheld BoP unchallenged.I thank CON for a constructive and vigorous (if not semantically tedious) debate, and for audiences that are able to make it through this exercise without annoyance, lol.