you are more evil than I am crazy

Well, I think that before I'll launch into extending my case, I'll refute some of my opponent's points. I'll just number my refutations just like he numbered his arguments. So if I'm refuting his first point, it would be labeled under 1. 1. Yes, my choice of words may have been a little harsh. However, I do not think that that one reason is enough to target me as an evil person. My reasoning is because when you say someone is evil, you usually are talking about them being really really bad. You do not mean that they may have chosen a harsh set of words to begin a debate with, you would mean that they have done something so bad, it warrants calling them evil. For instance, you could call Stalin evil for killing millions of people. You could call Hitler evil for killing millions of people. You could call anyone evil, as long as you had a good reason. My words that happen to be a little more harsh than most people would choose is NOT a good reason. 2. First off, CRAZYpenguin, you have no right to say that I am evil just based off of my username. If anything, you are the crazier one by using the word CRAZY(the quality we are debating) in your username. However, just in case none of you buy that argument, I'll explain my username to you. Earlier this year, I had taken a philosophy course in ethics, and on the second day of that course, our teacher decided to begin a discussion about justification, and one of the examples she gave me was thus: Let us accept that assisted suicide by the patients choice of death is ok. Seeing as the patient has a choice of death, he/she/it could choose any method that he/she/it wanted. Let us say that the patient is a puppy. Let us also say that in this hypothetical world, we can understand the puppy. The puppy has more than enough reason to want to die, and would like to die by his/her/it choice of method. The puppy chooses death by burning. The question at the end of this was; Is burning the puppy justified? (side note: this is a very extreme case, and in no way reflects upon my own character. Of course, if you buy that or not is your own choice, but you would have to prove it first.) The whole class loved the example, and I decided to use that example to inspire my username. Therefore, my username has no bearing upon my character, and even if it did, my opponent has no way of proving it, which is his job. My opponent's job is to prove that I am more evil than he is crazy. He has not proven anything. All he has done is throw accusations at me, accusations with which he has no way of proving. 3. About the "tazering," I just want to clarify it for all of the audience. Are any of the audience ticklish??? If the answer is yes, then you know what tazering feels like. A "tazer" is essentially when you lightly jab someone in the side, provoking a jump or start in the person. It doesn't do mental or physical damage. Also, I provided a definition for damage, and clearly, tickling someone in the side does not do mental or physical damage. If it did indeed to mental damage, I can disprove that because there is a way to prove that my opponent is not suffering mental damage. Look at his debates. He uses his mind to debate. His debates make sense. His debates follow a logical order. Even if my opponent might lose his debates every so often, he only loses because he fails to refute all of his opponent's points. In a nutshell, my opponent is on debate.org, and is able to debate, so therefore he can't be mentally damaged, or he would not be able to debate as well as he is. Physical damage I can't prove on this site, but even so, I don't have to prove it. My opponent does. So me not proving anything is ok, as long as I disprove anything my opponent says. 4. First off, his point isn't really a point, since it has no logical order, has no proof, and has nothing that would suggest he is trying to refute something I said. Also, he isn't really saying anything in this debate that would forward the debate. He is just saying that he is not crazy. He is not supposed to prove he is not crazy. His job is to prove that I, burningpuppies101, are more evil than he, crazypenguin, is crazy. He has not proven objectively that I am indeed more evil than he is crazy. Seeing as my opponent has not refuted any of my points in any meaningful fashion, I do not really have anything to say about my points, so I'm just going to rehash my points by copying my conclusion from my last speech. However, please do read my points from the first speech so that you actually know what I am saying. Conclusion: My opponent has no way to prove any claims he makes about me being evil. I do not have to prove that He is more crazy than I am evil. I only have to prove that I am NOT more evil than he is crazy. (small difference, but it's important) In otherwords, I just have to disprove his arguments. I don't need to present any arguments of my own to prove that he is more crazy than I am evil. Instead, I just presented arguments that will show that I am not more evil than he is crazy. My opponent has NO WAY TO PROVE ANYTHING HE SAYS IS TRUE (I know I just repeated myself, but I wanted to make sure you knew.) Thank You