There are 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street.

Re Word for Word: CON is incorrect. For instance, lets say a boy tells his father that there are 3 tires on his automobile. The father would point out that not only are there 3 tires, but there is 1 extra tire as well. Telling the boy that the car didn't possess 3 tires would be erroneous on the father's part. In the context of this debate, I would say that not only are there 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street (as in I agree with the resolution), but there are even more means than that (which actually strengthens the notion that there cannot be any less than five). Now if the resolution were phrased as "There are ONLY 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street", the PRO would be correct. If you don't buy the above argument, you're free to dismiss my 6th reason (assuming your going to vote in favor of the word for word approach). Advising this is not abusive on my part. As the CON states in R1, " . . . but voters MUST accept five of them." You can pick any five of the ways I suggested. You're not coerced to consider more. Re Intended debate: In the previous rounds, I explained why I do not have to abide by the rules (outside of the resolution) set up by my opponent. Furthermore, as you can see, the first two rules concern what CON can/can't do (my position is clearly PRO). My opponent ignores this argument, thus extend it to this round and dismiss this issue which is once again brought up by the CON. CON ignored my argument which concerned the necessity of him presenting arguments against the resolution rather than merely relying on objecting to my 5 reasons, so you may extend it to this round. CON ignored my rebuttals to his general arguments presented in R2, so you may extend them to this round. His concession to these rebuttals is reason enough to vote against his case as they concern what logic actually is and how it is to be used; it would make no sense for him to criticize my 5 reasons for being illogical when my arguments against his arguments for what is to be considered logical remain conceded to. Specific reasons: Re #1: I explained the problem with my opponent's definition of "crossing" in the previous round. My opponent does not address this and is therefore merely repeating himself. Thus, you're obligated to dismiss his rebuttal for the same reasons I had presented in R2. Furthermore, incentive to know what is considered a street is completely irrelevant. There's no reason as to why one cannot cross a pathway without actually comprehending the pathway. Heck, I can accidentally cross a street without knowing that I'm crossing a street while wearing a blindfold. Re #2: I agree that there is a major difference between dying WHILE crossing the street, and something that RESULTS in death, but as you can see, all of my ways of death occur WHILE CROSSING THE STREET. Also, there's no reason as to why something cannot result in death while crossing the street. As for immediate death, this is rare but possible. My opponent suggests that I should present precise evidence in this round and so I shall. Observe the following article:http://ezinearticles.com... As for my example, I clearly insinuated that the heart attack was a continuous process which ended in death while crossing the street. To illustrate it's possibility, you can refer to the massive heart attack segment above. Essentially, this successfully counters the CON's assumption. Re #3: If my grandfather died while crossing the street, I would agree that the typical idea would be that he must have been hit by a car. However, what one's initial assumptions are has no relevance here. CON does nothing to address my accusations concerning his red herrings, and therefore concedes to them. Logically, there is no reason as to why one CANNOT be fired at while crossing the street. CON does nothing to show how this is illogical. Rather, he continues to introduce irrelevant ideas that concern incentive (which concerns WHY rather than how). Uncle Ben died after he was driving. However, as I suggest in R2, death from a fire arm can occur instantly. Observe what I had stated (which should also address the accusation of me having not argued in favor of a logical answer): "If the victim is shot (at close range) in the brain or heart via shotgun, the victim will die instantaneously." Re #4: The CON yet again favors WHY by demanding to know WHY an assassin would kill someone in the middle of a street. To this, I will repeat what I've been suggesting: Whether or not we know WHY the death occurs has no effect on HOW the death occurs. However, to pacify the CON, I'll create a scenario: One could say that the assassin was slightly inebriated and didn't possess the mental abilities to see the error in his/her ways during the killing. Take this factor (or the one which I presented in the previous round) into consideration and the assassin could have complete confidence in executing the homicide. As for professionalism, the CON illogically concludes that professionalism is the equivalent to perfection. Just because you're considered a professional (as in you do something for a profession), it does not mean you're impervious to mistakes in your profession. If this were the case, the issue of malpractice wouldn't even exist when it came to lawyers and doctors. As for the 3rd world country issue, the fact that OBJECTIVE surveillance (film recording) is rare as well as the fact that CON doesn't address my previous claim concerning the typical police forces found in 3rd world countries makes his response on this issue dismissible. CON provides no reason as to why an assassin couldn't possibly kill someone who was crossing the street, hence it remains to be considered a logical reason. Re #5: CON directly concedes that we could be referring to ANY street in this debate. Thus, his previous notion concerning how this debate cannot apply to a street in a big city is dismissible even according to him. In other words, me claiming that someone can die due to falling debris from multistory buildings (while crossing a street) can be upheld. I never actually presented an argument concerning 911, but I will quickly point out that CON's reasoning on it is baseless conjecture. If he intends to insist that no one died while crossing the street on that day, he will need evidence. Since he doesn't present any, you have no reason to consider it. Not all streets are secured as my opponent insist. Since my opponent brought up New York, it's only fair that I prove him wrong through bringing up an example involving New York: http://query.nytimes.com... This proves the CON's argument false and further supports my argument on death in this manner being possible Re #6: CON ignored my arguments concerning the rules (which is all the more reason to make my introduction of this reason justified). Furthermore, CON not only had sufficient time to get access to the link but also could have asked for clarification via comment section. Voters: CON ignored the general arguments which concerned what logic was and how it is to be used. As I've explained above, this is absolutely CRUCIAL to his case. CON also failed to provide reasons as to why the resolution is false. Keep in mind that he was arguing as if the resolution were phrased "My opponent will not be able to present 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street." Whether or not I can personally present 5 logical ways of dying while crossing the street does not conclusively disprove the resolution, hence the reason independent arguments from CON were required. As you'll note, he does not even attempt to address how I've explained this in all 3 of my rounds. Finally, each of my reasons were not proven to be impossible and were merely countered with fallacies. Vote PRO. Thanks for the debate! :D