Tom Holland will make a horrible Spider-Man.

"Yes, thank you for defining what I am intended to argue here." I don't know if Pro knows this, but it is good to define terms in every debate so both side's goals are perfectly aware. "In the best case scenario for your argument, Spider-Man will be out there at most for a year." Pro must be unaware of The Civil War Storyline. In it, Peter Parker had been operating as a superhero for just under a decade, as I confirmed last round. Pro fails to notice that Spider-Man is well into adulthood during these events, so his repeated argument of him being too young is of no use."Before claiming on me being inaccurae, please read carefully the argument of your opponent." Ok, I can point the exact place where you said he was fifteen. In Round 1, in Pro's third paragraph, he says:"I will not throw away spoilers, but a number of signigicant deaths, suffering and tough choices, that affect characters so much, is simply not a place for a 15 years old boy! For this round, I will use the following argument: Tom Holland's portrayal of a 15 years old spidey"15 years old spidey"____________________________________Here, Pro has clearly asserted his claim that Spidey was fifteen during these events. I have highlighted the portions that confirm this. Pro says that the events of The Civil War are "no place for a 15 years old boy" and that he will use the argument over "Tom Holland's portrayal of a 15 years old spidey".This confirms I have carefully read my opponent's arguments, and by him saying that I haven't, and that I should point out exactly where he said my claims, I have managed tohighlight the exact points where he said so as asked.___________________Even if Parker is teenage in The Civil War film adaptation, that does in no way determine his performance quality as Spidey. Pro's resolution is that "Tom Holland will make a horrible Spider-Man", not "Spider-Man is too young for him to be in The Civil War."Therefore, it is a moot point for Pro to keep referring to this, as it would not effect Holland's quality of portrayal._____________________________Pro misunderstands me. I said that if Pro were to make the case that Holland is too young to play the character in these events, he is nineteen. Not fifteen.There is proof that Cap ages. Below I will provide a scene from a comic where Cap was stripped of his Serum to reveal his old self. The serum does not prevent his aging, it just masks it. However, to claim that Cap is ninety years old is still moot, because his time frozen haulted any possible aging. s://comicbookrants.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" width="484" height="209" />__________________________________Pro then states that he was arguing about the MCU Civil War, not the comics one.It is illogical to argue over the MCU Civil War, as it has not happened yet. I would like Pro to point out anywhere in the past movies that says Stark will be at least fifty. ________________"You will just have to put up with me, my friend. But thank you for this awesome round." Pro needs to be cautious then, because if he is in beed of being put up with, he is on the verge of fallacies.I too would like to thank Pro for this round.__________SOURCES:https://www.google.com...