Staring at A Woman's Assets is a Form of a Compliment

I will flow through my opponent's layout, then analyze.First I do concede to the idea that my opponent provided refutation. But, the only point he gave was that i must prove all women WILL enjoy staring. This is an impossible burden to uphold as i will prove under the BoP part.Burden Of Proof AnalysisCon: My opponent's BoP is that staring SHOULD not be a form of a compliment (He must refute the ideology of the resolution) The "contradiction" my opponent outlined is false. I stated women like compliments. Since the intentions of staring are not harmful and in fact praising, staring SHOULD also be a compliment.Pro:This is an impossible BoP to uphold since 1)Both Pro and Con acknowledge not all women enjoy staring. 2)The Pro's burden is outlined as should since Pro achieves to set a general idea is a good thing. Similar to the moral stating one SHOULD not kill, not one WILL not kill. It provides an ideology, not foretells actions. You drop Con's BoP on the grounds that it is an impossible BoP to achieve. Pro's, on the other hand, provides a fairer ground, while my opponent's deceitfully tries to set unreachable goals for the Pro. As for the whole "should" rant, my opponent rambles on about useless analogies (ie: I should become the tallest basketball player alive). Yet from his analogies, we understand that Con clearly does not know what should means so I will give him a definition:Should- indicating one must act rightly, accordinglyAgain I am not here to state that women WILL like staring, I am here to state that women SHOULD like staring. I guess my opponent should read my points better.The "all women appreciate staring" was dropped so no backing to his BoP.Reconstruction Of PointsContention 1a) Dropped point on all women like staring. The remainder does not take away from my stance that women should enjoy staring.Contention 1b)The "faulty logic" my opponent provides can clearly be refuted since 1)Rape is an outright violation of the right to security. Feeling unsafe and being unsafe are two completely different things. And either way i state that women should not feel unsafe because of staring. Furthermore, my opponent does not clarify as to how it causes mental trauma. 2)Rape harms both physically and Severely mentally. Staring does induce physical pain,nor severe mental pain. No extesive evidence exists yet for Con to use, so accept this as a valid point agreed on both my Pro ad Con. 3)The sexual nature of staring does not go to the point of physical ineraction.Contention 2)Again I say SHOULD. This, contrary to what Con believes should meant(he should look at the definition I gave), means if they don't want to, they don't have to do so. But they recognize that this is one way to prevent the staring if they feel uncomfortable. I also stated this might not be a problem for some people since it would fit their expression. So, contrary to what Con believes (as we can tell by now is obviously flawed), I do not limit the freedom of expression, because I offer a solution to being uncomfortable, I do not enforce it.ConclusionI clearly uphold my BoP (the fair/proper one) and continue to show how my stance is unrefuted as well as correct.AnalyzeSo what we are left with here is a misinterpretation by Con, a flawed perception of should by Con, an impossible BoP by Con, flawed logic by Con, and refutations by Con that were dropped. Pro on the other hand is upholding his BoP, is standing with a reaffirmed case, and is providing a better logic.Due to all this, I urge a Pro ballot.