chocolate

I agree with my opponent, chocolate does have sugar in it. How ever my argument in round three was made to support the argument of the base ingredient in round two. Also, my opponent does not make any sense. He says that sugar based candies "sugar-based candies cause less harms than chocolate does". How is this possible if sugar is simply an add on to chocolate to make it taste a wee bit sugary, yet 'sugar-based' candy is made strictly of pure sugar. My opponent has mentioned their 'mathematical theory of thought', " I don't believe one plus one equals two, then it no longer equals two, but instead three". They are simply trying to manipulate / play-on-with words. What my opponent is suggesting is that people who eat chocolate are suicidal. On what grounds do I say this? On the second argument he has said "eating chocolate can lead to suicide". This is simply a claim. It is the same as saying "All who eat sugar-based-candy are obese". By their claim in Round Three "Just because we don't think of chocolate as causing us depression and leading us to suicide, doesn't make it any less true" I should be excused to say that sugar-based candy is leading all who eat it into cardiac arrest and heart failure simply by the .001% effect of one of its numerous ingredients. Which is a slower and more painful type of suicide than that of depression. Which shows us that sugar-based candy consumption is more harmful than chocolate due to the painful suicide it causes. My opponent has also stated the following: "All my opponent is doing is try to appeal to some metric of outside reason by saying "Don't believe this. You know it isn't true. He's being ridiculous. "" I would like to further explain these false translations of my words. Obviously my opponent has made my reasoning oblivious to himself. They say these because either they fail to see my reasoning or to mislead the viewers who skim past the argument to look for key words. My opponent is not paraphrasing my rebuttal, they are misleading it. They also state that I have made no argument for their claim of chocolate leading into suicide. This is also false. As you can easily see from the third round I have provided a list of reasons for suicide. What this list shows is, those who commit suicide do it due to social and psychological reasons, nowhere on the numerous lists of reasons for suicide can one find a reason relating to chocolate. As you can see my opponent has been making false claims to my arguments. Therefore, they cannot be trusted. If anything, chocolate is an anti depressant. I could not respond in round four, and for that I give to all voters, comment-ers , and my opponent my sincere apologies. The reason for my absence was that I had to undergo surgery. Before my surgery, the doctor saw that I was a little upset. He asked if I would like some chocolate. I asked why, he said "It will make you smile and give you trust. ". After finding out what he meant it was a shock to me, and after my surgery I did some research. Doctors offer chocolate to their patients before surgery, x-rays, and some even before drawing blood. Reason being is that chocolate helps calm the patient before the medical procedures, it also helps keep the mind busy so that the patient would be less nervous about all the things that can possibly go wrong. This Point On Will Be A Fallacy To The Main Argument, It Is Simply A Side Note / Observation: I will not fill the viewers head with propaganda as my opponent does. He constantly tells the viewers to vote con. Round Three: "reason why you're going to believe the con case over the pro case" "that's why you'll be voting con" Round Two: "Vote Con! " Yet in round one he claims he is looking forward to an interesting debate. How can this debate be interesting if my opponent constantly blurs out to vote for con. I will refuse to commercialize for pro, simply because I believe that it should be up to the unbiased view of the viewers to make up their mind. Not by the debaters propaganda. Also, as stated above, this is a fallacy to the argument. I am simply writing it here because my opponent has made these remarks in both arguments were he makes a claim.