The Statement "Moderation in All Things" Is A Logical Fallacy.

This should be easy.Given that I have already stated my case in round 2 I assume I am now able to respond to PRO's argument. First, let me point out that PRO makes an argument with two premises and a conclusion. My strategy will be twofold. First, I will show that his second premise is false. Second, I will show that his argument is begging the question and he needs to re-structure his argument.I concede, for the purposes of this debate that Moderation is a "thing," lest I get accused of arguing based on semantics.I. Why 2 is falseMy argument crucially depends on the definition PRO gave of "Moderation in all things" in the debate announcement in round 1. I Would like to press PRO on this point, as changing the definition mid debate should not be a legitimate strategy. The definition was the following:Moderation In All Things =def You should not do or have too much of anything.Let me then translate the second premise:2. If it was true that "You should not do or have too much of anything" then "you should have too much moderation"But that is clearly false. Moderation should be applied to the appropriate amount of things. And the appropriate amount of things to be moderate about just is all things.The only way that PRO might argue for 2, is if PRO argued for the following statement4: If anything applies to all things then it can't be in moderation.Or the translation per the definition4*: If anything applies to all things then it applies to too many thingsBut that seems false. Here is a property E: Everything has the property of 'either being an elephant or not being an elephant'Clearly, everything has the property E. Does E apply to too my things? Of course not! This means 4* is false, and since it is definitionally equivalent with 4, 4 is also false. And since 4 is false, we have no reason to believe 2.Let me state this one more way: If we should be moderate in all things, then we should be moderate in applying the property E. But there is nothing immoderate about applying the property E to all things, precisely because we are not applying it to too many things. So, if property E can be applied to all things without being immoderate, then "moderation in all things" can be applied to all things without being immoderate.II. Why the argument is uninformativePRO provided two premises and one conclusion. 1. Moderation is a thing.2. If moderation was in all things, then all things aren't in moderation. 3. Therefore, moderation isn't in all thingsThe structure of this argument is the following:1. A2. If B then not B3. Not BThat is a valid argument, but it is boring. The first premise is unnecessary. The conditional in the second premise trivially translates to "not B or not B." I would have an easy time arguing for anything if I could start with a premise that says "Either the conclusion is true or its true." That is begging the question about as clear as daylight. I suppose that would also be why I reject the second premise, as it alone entails the conclusion.Well, the first problem is that the conclusion contains two more premises. The argument should have been structured like this:1. Moderation is a thing. 2. If moderation is in everything then moderation is in moderation 3. If anything is in all things it is not in moderation.4. If moderation was in all things, then all things aren't in moderation. 5. Therefore, moderation isn't in all thingsThis still isn't right though. Here is the argument PRO should have madeSuppose for reductio:1. All things should be in moderation2. "All things should be in moderation" is a thingSo,3. "All things should be in moderation" should be in moderation4. If anything is true of all things it is not in moderation.5. If anything is in moderation it is not true of all things -------------- By contraposition, 4So,6. "All thing should be in moderation" is not true of all things -------- By 3 and 5So,7. There are some things that should not be in moderation---- CONTRADICTION!!!May I point our how cleverly I once again made 4. the same premise I named so above. But premise 4 is of course the false premise, at least according to the definition of "all things in moderation" provided by PRO in round 1Remember, Moderation In All Things- something that you say which means you should not do or have too much of anything.PRO defined moderation as being true of too much, not as being true of all things. And for some statements, being true of everything just is not being true of too much. Thus, we cannot allow PRO the crucial premise in his argument.III. ConclusionI don't see any way for PRO to wiggle out of this one. He needs a premise of the type of 4 to get his argument off the ground, but he has disallowed this by the way he defined "everything in moderation" in the opening. I'd love to see what he has to offer, but at this point I'm pretty sure that logic is on my side. I'll add more in the next rounds if necessary.