i am a idiot

"i - Con, jamielynn" I agree that the "i" is reffering to me. "idiot - somebody who acts in a foolish, self defeating, uneducated or counterproductive way [. http://en.wikipedia.org......(person)] - a foolish or stupid person [. http://www.merriam-webster.com......] foolish [. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......] - devoid of good sense or judgment - having or revealing stupidity stupid [. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......] - a person who is not very bright self defeating [. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......] - acting to defeat its own purpose uneducated [. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......] - not having a good education counterproductive [. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......] - tending to hinder the achievement of a goal" Agreed. "Pretty straight forward in my opinion - If I can show that my opponent is an idiot, than I win. " Agreed. ==Contention 1: Con is uneducated and stupid. As my opponent has just clearly demonstrated, she can not spell well and she can not form proper sentence structure. These basic attributes are learned in grammar school and my opponent shows poor command of them. Therefore, my opponent is uneducated and stupid. == However, it now appears as if I can create proper sentence structure using proper grammar. You see, I cleverly tricked you into thinking I was stupid so that you would take this debate. This proves that I am not an idiot and that I am indeed educated. ==Contention 2: Con is self defeating. My opponent made a perfect case for Pro. She failed to capitalize the first letter of the first word of the sentence, she did not capitalizes "I", she made numerous grammar mistakes, and mispelt "luck". Thus, my opponent just defeated herself. == Yes, but that was all just to lure you into my trap. Because an idiot can't think of traps like this, I am not an idiot. ==Contention 3: Con is counterproductive. My opponent's goal is, presumably, to win this debate. However, my opponent does not appear to have made a good case for Con. A much better case would have been. .. Resolved: I am an idiot. Notice "an" instead of "a". Argumen: Prove it. If my opponent's case was as above, she would have been much more productive - but instead Con wasted time and made a self-defeating case. Thus, she is counterproductive. == Refer back to the the refutations of Contention 1 and 2. ==Conclusion: Con is an idiot. The conclusion, clearly, directly follows the contentions/premises of what an idiot is defined as. Resolution affirmed. == Not quite. CONTENTION 1: I am clever As idiots are not clever, I must not be an idiot. I am clever because I used a trap in the first round to set myself up for contentions in the second round. I fooled my opponent and made him look incompetent. CONTENTION 2: I am educated I obviously know correct grammar and spelling to an acceptable degree. Thus, due to Pro's own arguments, I must be educated. CONTENTION 3: I plan ahead I obviously knew from the beginning how I would play this debate and figured out how I would set up my first 2 rounds. An idiot would be too "stupid" to think ahead and create a trap for his opponent. CONCLUSION: I am not an idiot Good luck on your next round. :D