Justin Bieber should be killed and forgotten.

Last Introduction:Here we are at the end of this debate. I am however deeply disappointing that my opponent is playing on semantics over the time period of when Justin Bieber will be forgotten. I will not go into the "who is right argument" and will leave that up to the audience to decide. My points really have not been negated, so I feel like not much needs to be said. However, this round will be somewhat of a review.Last Arguments:1. My opponent again has failed to disprove my point. I believe it is clear for the audience to understand, yet my opponent still does not get it. Let me show an example of what I mean:Person A: "I am club security and need a report about a man named Smith. I need to know everything about Smith."Person B: "Smith is black and has an illegal gun, therefore it would be better for Smith not to come into the club again."Person C: "More black people have illegal guns, therefore it would be better to remove all black people from the club. Since this is a moral issue I don't agree upon, it is okay for Smith to stay in the club."If we were talking about the whole world (in the example: all black people) it would be a different subject. However, we are just talking about Justin Bieber (in the example: Smith.) You have failed to refute my point. This debate is not about other people. Whether I believe the world would be better off without people is a totally different subject.Argument extended. 2. My opponent says that proof of Justin Bieber's love is how many albums he sells, concert sales, ect... What she fails to realize is what kind of love. Which is better, love of Bieber or love of each other? The love my opponent is talking about is the love of Bieber. It would be much more beneficial if we loved each other. For example, Stalin. Millions of people loved Joesph Stalin(1). Does this mean it would have been better if Stalin lived forever? Apply that to anyone you want. Lots of Americans loved George Bush, this didn't make the whole world in love with each other. It is better for people to love those around them rather than love one individual.Also, you say that the youtube comments are a "handful of people." Do you need more proof? Like I said before type in I hate Bieber on google. There are so many people hating each other. Look at people who created youtube videos about Bieber. People have gotten death threats for loving this guy! Justin Bieber's official videos have over a million thumbs down, way more than the thumbs up. What more needs to be said? Justin Bieber has second place for most hated video on Youtube (second only to Rebecca Black. (2)) My opponent also tries to bring up morals again when she says "Bieber has a right to life". I agree! And if I had the choice to kill him right now I would not. But this debate is not about morals. It is about what would be OVERALL BETTER FOR THE WHOLE WORLD. Please get this right. You accepting this debate knew the resolution. So the right to life argument is completely pointless in this debate. I have a feeling however that my opponent will not let this go in her last round.3. My opponent cannot change her argument on this point. I explained my position in round two, and my opponent accepted it. My opponent did not refute it, instead she agreed by saying "This, again, is true." Therefore that part of the argument is finished. Argument extended.4. Again my opponent agreed with me on this point, yet she wants to change her arguments? This is not how a debate works. Yes, Justin Bieber is only seventeen, but by that age most people are mature. Justin Bieber is slow to mature, therefore removing him would speed up the evolutionary chain. My opponent plays the morals card once again by implying that since lots of people mature slow it would be immoral to remove them.Closing: There are a few things I would like to say in my last closing.First, like I stated above this debate is about the overall benefit of the entire world. Justin Bieber's right to life has absolutely nothing to do with with this debate. Morals have nothing to do with this debate. In a way, this is a +/- debate. The resolution states this.Secondly, my opponent spent most of the time in this debate attempting to refute my points, yet she waits till the last moment to say some things Justin Bieber has done. Even then, she just says some outlines of the things he has done. These things are very small things if you look at the overall benefit. Stalin did some great things for this world, but overall it was better for him to die. Donating money (a pretty small amount compared to what needs to be donated) does not mean it would be better for him to stay alive. Lastly, like I also said, Justin Bieber has a right to life. If it came down to me deciding if he could live or not, I'd let him live because of my morals. But remember that the point of this debate is about the overall good.I would like to thank my opponent one more time for this debate. I am sorry if she did not understand the resolution.Audience, I have shown all my points clearly. I have explained them in detail, and properly defended them. As any reader can see it would benefit the whole world if Justin Bieber was killed and forgotten. I urge a Pro vote.Sources: (1). http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...(2). http://www.urlesque.com...