anyone who didnt vote for Obama is a racist!!!!!

Fellow earthlings, it is my great honour to serve as your con for this evening. As my first act in the noble office of contender I'll start with the simple statement:"I won't talk like this during the entire debate, so relax"But I will talk about how flawed this resolution is all on it's own and how Pro cannot properly defend it and therefore how he cannot possibly win this debate. let's start with the list of fallacies I have open in my other tab that apply to the debate[1]. If I handle any of these fallacies incorrectly do let me know in the comments so I can fix it:THE CONJUCTION FALLACY:"assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them."My opponent is stating that the only reason that someone would not vote for Obama is because he is black. This falls under several fallacies but I think this one fits the best; Pro is assuming that it is more probable that each and every person that did not vote for Obama is racist than it is that even a single one of them is not racist. Because that is the problem with generalizations like the resolution is: It does not allow any space for errors; either everyone is A or it is false. SO in order to PROVE that the resolution is false and win the debate I must only find a single person that did not vote for Obama that isn't a racist. It won't matter if there are a half a million racist voters, if I can find even a single one I don't need to worry about the rest, I've proved that not everyone that voted for Obama is racist. Now, I'll perform a single fallacy on my own and appeal to chance: Is it more likely that you have 61.000.000 voters that are ALL racist instead of 61.000.000 where at least one is not racist? If we even assume that humans are evil by default and there is only 1/10th of a percent chance (0.1%) of a person to not be racist we still have practically 0 chance once we're talking about six million voters. Even if we have a thousand voters the chance of everybody being racist is still under majority, around 36% (0.999^1000). So with each voter the odds of this resolution being true will slide closer and closer to 0. I therefore deduct that at least a single voter exists that isn't racist and chose Romney due to his political opinions and promises and therefore the resolution is negated.Fallacy of the single clause "it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes."This one is a bit far fetched but my opponent displays the following chain of reasoning:"You Didn't vote for Obama you must be Racist because there is no other reason not to vote for him"This is oversimplification. If I disagree with a person it must be because of my opinion of that said person. If I think that someone is a bad leader it must be because of my personal opinion of that person. If I think some other person if more fit than the person in question it must be because of my personal opinion of the latter.you see how this line of reasoning cannot work; Because it makes the unfair assumption that I cannot form a personal opinion of what someone said or his actions, I have to be fixated on that person and how he appears to me regardless of his character. This is a racist line of thought and cannot work as a case in this debate: and that leads us to the final section:IT WAS RACIST TO VOTE FOR OBAMAThis might seem counteractive and an absurd statement; But in fact it is part of my case: If the resolution is true then this statement must be true as well. As I've reasoned in the second section of my debate my opponent seems to assume that there is not a single reason to vote for someone except for your own personal opinion. if this is true, and note that it has to be in order for my opponent to make any case on generalizations, then it must be reasonable to assume that everyone that voted FOR Obama must have voted him for the sole reason that he is black. But wait a minute, this is racism as well. Discriminating someone due to their race or personal opinions. By voting for someone because he is black is just as racist as voting against someone because he is black. This leads us to the conclusion that EVERYONE IS RACIST.but that doesn't makes sense, again. As I demonstrated in the first section of this round it is impossible for everyone to be racists because if even a single one is not the entire chain is broken. Since it is impossible for everyone to be racist the counter resolution that it is Racism to vote for Obama is false. But if the Counter resolution is false then the resolution must also be false. But if the resolution is false my opponent cannot defend it and has lost the debate.Fellow Earthlings; I could go on and on but I have effective proved trough rather simple logic that my opponent has started a debate he cannot defend. I have shown that the resolution cannot hold ground. My opponent must show that in order for someone to vote for Obama he must not be racist. My opponent has given me the burden of proof and I fulfilled it until he has proved otherwise. My opponent must give us a detailed explanation, a solid wall, a column to show us why my case is false. I shift the weight of the debate on to him and await the next set of arguments.1] http://en.wikipedia.org...2] http://en.wikipedia.org...