Noone can beat Chuck Norris.

My opponent is making certain assumtions that all others on this planet share his same fractured mental state that makes him inable to be certain of anything. For example, I am 100% certain that I am saved by God, and that there is a God to save me. I am 100% certain that if my opponent would slit open his wrist and leave the wound unattented he will die of blood loss, and his corpse will turn blue. I am certain that if one holds a angus calfs head and neck flat on the ground it will be as unable to move as if it had an 'off switch' that you used. And of all the things my opponent worries that could be possible to throw doubt into the mix, it is not important if one is not 100% certain when one is clearly certain enough. What methods we have avalible to us to determine truth is what we have availible to us and we are to base our resolved beliefs on those very methods. Because of these methods I am now 100% certain enough that Chuck Norris is a 70 year old burnt out actor that endorses political agendas these day's. My opponents claim was that no one can ever be 100% certain, and yet hear I am with a certainty that contradicts that statement, for if no one can be certain than neither can I be yet I obviously am certain. My opponent did nothing to argue against the Jacki Chan Vs Norris last round so under the perception that he is as real as the Huckabee show portrays my opponent must be consieding that under that possibility Chan would win on shere awsomeness (he reaserches no congressional bills, his life is filled with action movie making). So as open minded as my opponent is, to win this debate he must close his mind to the possibility that is most probable that chuck norris is a 70 year old man that is so lame he reaserches bills, and has not roundhouse kicked Mitt Romney in the face for causing the presidential canidate he outspokenly made a stand for to lose the primaries. But let us consider some of the possibilities my opponent sugest could be the real truth. That in fact the only comparision from last round that is valid is my consiousness, not my body or what it can do, for my mind is all that I can know. and it vs a figment from his mind, I would lose to norris. or even to the Norris of anyone elses minds. This is false. as we can see from some of my past debates; http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... It is clear that if I have one streangth, it is my imaginativeness. In one of those debates my opponent even took not of it and comended me for it, but my imaginativeness was not based on facts. If the tech was provided to allow a hypothetical match between the figment of your mind called chuck norris (or anyone elses mind this figment exist in) I would win hands down. Why? because your chuck norris is limeted by 'facts' http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com... and that is why they are called 'chuck norris facts' whereas my mind has been testified by others to this site to freely go beyond 'facts' as I imagine things. So as your chuck norris would begin to use his atomic round house kick I would have already had my chrono-abram tank that is mentaly prepared for just such occasions to de-atomize your chuck norris. the chrono tech of my tank is based apon the chrono legonairs of 'Red Alert 2'. Plus if my opponent is allowed to claim as fact for this debate that he is trained martial arts then I am allowed to claim that I am trained in tibeten mental disciplens that keeps me safe from mind reader, mind control, and mental envasion. whereas you are lucky enough to to infiltrate my mind by the tech that makes the figment norris vs me match possible, I am trained to deal with such a mental invasion and easily overpower your own mind before you concentrait enough to make norris a solid fighting charcter, and once norris is formed I control him because I control you and order him to admit inferority to my awsomeness and roundhouse kick himself in his own face. Beyond an actual mental match, my point about killing my opponent in his sleep still stands as he will not be expecting me to come, or that I would even find his house, so it does not matter what training he has, If I'm awake and he is not it is a no contest match. The same rules applies to anyone eles who is being the avatar for the fictitious Norris based on the Norris facts because that Norris is based on 'Facts' and that is why this figment Norris can even exist in multiple people's minds. if the Norris of your mind is not based on those facts than he is not the chuck norris of this debate, and for all purposes should be called something else like 'the Zohan', like adam sandlers Iraqi Chuck Norris. http://www.sonypictures.com... So it seems clear that by the possibilities my opponent has been defending on the weak ground that 'we are not 100% certain he's an old man' and that the figment of his mind could not be defeated, though my round one contender would have lost, my round two contender (myself) would not. On to my round three contender. Batman. For there is still another perspective 'possibility' that we could not be 100% sure of not being real and thats of the simple awsome level match between the Norris of the 'Chuck Norris facts'. For surely though I would win an imaginitive mind match with anyone mentally trying to conceive of the Norris, the fact may still be disputed that at the end of the day no one will still consider me quite as awsome as the descriptions of the Norris from 'the facts' list, anyone of average awsomeness could contend such a figment that isnt given the free range of being defined by the full imanginative powers of the person supporting him, but must stay limited to his 'facts list', and the only fair match worth considering against the Chuck Norris is one of any two characters that exist in some sense that my opponent defined, No other charcter has been defined more awsomely than the 'Chuck Norris Facts' make Chuck Norris. But from my opponents definition of allowing fictional characters, its clear Batman is allowed, and I think anyone can agree Noone is more awsome than Batman (Bruce Wayne) from the DC comic universe. Consider these Batman facts Batman is so prepared that even if some one poisins him and he is stark naked, he still has the antidote for cureing himself on hand (without his batbelt) because he has it in his shoulder, he cut open and keeps it inside there. Batman killed the God of Evil with a Radon bullit. on Batman 'Brave and the Bold' its clear that all other super heros that nomaly have sidekicks of there own are Batmans Sidekicks. http://comics.ign.com... Bruce is about to overcome History itself. there are absolutely no traps our situations he cannot deal with. Chuck norris on the other hand, he cannot even cry to cure himslef from cancer. how lame that he could die so easily. Hands down Batman is more awsome than Norris.