It is My Opinion That Obama is Stupid

Although I could play even more semantics and win this even easier, I shall leave the definition of opinion that Pro has given untouched. I will now explain something about grammar and how you define 'it' 'my', 'is' and 'stupid'. Pro claims that it is 'my' opinion that Obama is stupid. Let's firstly define 'my': Belonging to or associated with the speaker http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... I am sure that Pro would agree to this definition. The issue is that by admitting that both Pro can 'own' this opinion and that it can 'belong' to Pro, it indicates that Pro is sharing this opinion with many others. thus it indicates that the resolution would have been better suited to have used the term 'our' rather than 'my' and every single other person who has the opinion that Pro has would agree with me that this is opinion should neither be considered as belonging to pro nor associated with Pro. it is a free opinion, independent of Pro's reign of terror and enslavement of it. This opinion has every right to belong to anyone it wishes as any time. Now let's define 'it': http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (1) Used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified (2) Referring to an animal or child of unspecified sex (3) Referring to a fact or situation previously mentioned, known, or happening When we observe the word 'it' in the resolution, there is nothing aforementioned that could indicate what the 'it' cold be replacing in its pronoun form. This is the first error with the resolution. As Pro has the P to both uphold the resolution and defend its meaning, I can win if I merely attack the resolution itself. Aside from this grammatical and semantic flaw in Pro's argument comes the definition of both 'is' and 'stupid'. Let me first define 'stupid' before I define 'is' as 'is' is the killer punch in my case against the resolution. Stupid: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (1) Lacking intelligence or common sense (2) Dazed and unable to think clearly This, at first, seems a plausible definition to fit the resolution until we look at the stupidity of the one holding the opinion. This is not ad hominem, this is simply questioning the one claiming to 'own' an opinion all to himself as to explain why he, being stupid enough to have made the aforementioned grammatical errors writing the resolution, would consider himself intelligent enough to judge stupidity in the first place. In fact no scale of judging stupidity whatsoever is supplied. Instead Pro actually refutes the very premise that it is his ('my') opinion admitting that he holds it simultaneously in correspondence with that of Mr. Grump. And finally, the punchline to my case... The definition of 'is': http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... third person singular present of be. be: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (1) (usually there is/are) Exist (2) Be present (3) Occur; take place Clearly, if Obama 'is' stupid this would only be a valid opinion to have at the time of his stupidity. Thus, to think that Pro could possibly have the opinion Obama is stupid and be able to type this resolution out in time for Obama's present stupidity to be of concern to him is absurd. by the time Pro has even formulated the very thought of typing the first letter of the resolution, the term 'is' is already redundant and the term was must replace it. It is, thus, not only a failure on Pro's part that their BoP in this debate wasn't met but a failure on time itself. The present tense cannot ever be 'had' an opinion about because the instant that one says the 'have' an opinion it has been 'had' about the past. Thus, I conclude that I have just semantically ninja-leaped myself out of this failed attempt at an axiomatic resolution. Good luck meeting your BoP Pro (it's my opinion that you will be stupid).