Resolved: A corrupt girlfriend/boyfriend is better than no boyfriend/girlfriend

1) : PRO HAS CONCEDED TO THE RESOLUTION BEING FALSE. Observe the claims below: "On the other hand, I am using the resolution to state that someone's bf/gf CAN be a corrupt PERSON" "I was not saying that having someone who was a corrupt in the bf/gf department was better than having no bf/gf at all, but rather in some cases it is more beneficial (in the bf/gf sense) to be with someone corrupt so long as they weren't corrupt in that one area (as a bf/gf). ." Please take the time to read the resolution for a moment and tell me what it says: "Resolved: A corrupt girlfriend/boyfriend is better than no boyfriend/girlfriend. " You heard it out of her own mouth, folks; PRO is against the resolution. PRO's job isn't to show that corrupt relationships can be better; PRO's job is to show that corrupt relations ARE better. In short, even if you don't buy into any of the arguments I've presented, you are obligated to turn PRO's own argument (or confession rather) around and use it for my side. Just because I rebutted every one of PRO's argments, it does not mean that I believe there are no situations where a corrupt girlfriend/boyfriend is better than no BF/GF. Rather, my role is simply to negate the idea that corrupt relationships are better that no relationships. Not only have I done this, but PRO has as well. Since the next round is the final round, if PRO attempts to contradict what she said, you are not to take it into consideration. Also, since she says that this is what her accoutant analogy concludes, I have no reason to address it. 2) Um, I don't recall claiming that she provided a definition for sugar daddy. But if she is talking about her definition of boyfriend/girlfriend, which was a relationship defined as mutual sexual/romantic attraction, then no, a sugar daddy wouldn't qualify. In case you misunderstand the argument, no one is saying that a sugar daddy cannot be a BF. Rather, I'm just saying it's not a BF according to the definition of BF/GF which PRO upholds and insist on arguing against. 3) PRO makes it pretty clear what her rebuttal boils down to. She suggest that we've all seen relationships where people bf/gf's have taken up additional roles. This is her attempt to paint my argument as impossible. But if you scrape off the paint, it is rather apparent that what PRO is arguing against is not my argument, but rather an argument which she created to be refuted. Again, no one is suggesting that a BF/GF cannot also be a provider (in fact, I've been saying this since R2). Rather though, what I'm saying is common sense; I'm saying that a BF/GF isn't defined as an individual who provides. If it were, it would have been mentioned in PRO's definition. Finally, we must note that my main point which concerns overpopulation as well as how no relationship can prevent corruption from being spread into society has gone completely overlooked by PRO. These points of offense are what show how my benefits outweigh PROs (responding to this in the next round would be abusive). Thus, it is rather clear that I have won the intended debate. ------------------------------- Now I'm gonna lay out the massive problems with PRO's "forfeit/character arguments" . 1) PRO is more than likely being deceitful if she is denying the existence of the glitch. How do I know this? She is an officer of the debate. org facebook tournament and the problem concerning the glitch has been brought to everyone's attention on the main facebook page more than once. Given that she frequents this page, that would be sufficient evidence for my claim. I would suspect that PRO is simply trying to trick the debaters who aren't aware of the glitch. Interesting for someone who is supposedly attempting to exchange ideas. 2) She ignores the utter refutation I provide concerning whether or not I simply lied/cheated. I PROVED that a glitch occurred. This goes completely ignored. And since the way I presented that point has gone uncontested (as in I considered it of not having enough relevance to post here), this is all the more reason for us to take this as a concession. If PRO responds to this in the next round, ignore it as it would be abusive for her merely to wait until the final round to respond. 3) Her logic on "EVEN IF a glitch did occur" is flat out absurd. If a glitch truly did occur, then I posted in the original intended time frame, end of discussion. All of this "we have families, lives jobs, friends" stuff CANNOT POSSIBLY be compared to my situation as it is the debate. org itself which is to blame 4) If you'll note the comment section, I actually DID apologize to PRO on the OFF CHANCE she was actually offended by my so-called "foul play. " Given that this is the case, it is no doubt conclusive that PRO intends to win through being deceitful. At the very MOST (as I had pointed out previously), one could attempt to argue that you simply scrap the extra 2500 characters, but PRO insist you scrap the whole thing. In short, her premise doesn't justify her conclusion. 5) As for the character limit, given the purpose of the character limit in the first place (which is maintain brevity), I have fulfilled said purpose and have maintained the bandwidth of this website moreso than PRO. Furthermore, simply using all 24,000 character response in the last response would suggest that there was no real debating in the other rounds. This tactic would simply be injudicious for any debater to pull. 6) She says that she only said you should disregard what I said in that one round where the glitch kicked in, but THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. Read her comment: "If you agree that this is completely unfair and/or "shady," to say the least, please do not feel compelled to read the remainder of my round, and just skip down to Pro's R3. " Um, if you're going to skip down to PRO R3, that would suggest that she wanted you to skip CON R3. This is no doubt substantial evidence that PRO is simply trying to make a fool out of you. Furthermore, if you are to ignore what I say in two whole rounds, are you really gonna feel compelled to read my final round if you don't really even grasp the origin of my rebuttals? Simply relying on PRO's retelling of my arguments (especially since it is her intention to win) won't accomplish that (not to mention that she casually drops arguments in this debate). 7) The advantage is clear. In R1, I simply provided one brief contention. In response, she provided 9 contentions. This is a cheap competition debate tactic defined as "spreading" as providing a high number of arguments can easily serve to limit the amount of arguments the opposition brings to the tables. In short, I gave PRO massive advantage. The fact that she is talking about the lack of fairness in this debate is simply shameless and greedy. 8) PRO has the audacity to say we've spent too much time talking about my so-called abusiveness. Um, wasn't she the one to bring it up? For that matter, wasn't she the one who chose to use over 50% of her character limit talking about this? Why is it that she has used over 5300 characters to say something as simple as "There is no proof that there is a glitch, violating the character limit is against the rules, therefore, your rounds aren't to be taken into consideration. " I could ALMOST see if she actually had to present in depth evidence for both of the premises, but she doesn't really even do that. Thus, it is more than likely that PRO is simply milking you on your emotion (as she is well aware that users normally disregard people who forfeit), and is getting out of having to ACTUALLY DEBATE the resolution through pretending that it is really necessary for her to spend most of her character limit saying something ad nauseam and talking about something that could have been pointed out in simply in a paragraph at best. Thanks for the debate.