With 30 minutes of preparation, the user known as Kleptin could feasibly vanquish a grizzly bear

My opponent has done a fantastic job detailing the methods by which I can feasibly vanquish this grizzly bear. However, from reading my opponent's last argument, I find it necessary to note that so far, my opponent has not been able to respond to my point of our very discussion taking far more than half an hour. What my opponent has been doing, is arguing that there exists a plan which, if carried out perfectly, will make it possible to vanquish the bear. However, this is not the resolution. The resolution is whether it is feasible that I can both feasibly DEVELOP a plan and feasibly CARRY IT OUT. The audience should take into account that my opponent needed to not only provide a plan, but also one that I myself could have come up with and put into action with 30 minutes of preparation. If my opponent develops a plan that is possible, but it is greatly hindered by the formulation and execution, then it no longer becomes feasible and regardless of the viability of the plan, we must disregard it. Please keep this in the back of your minds while I respond: TREE CLIMBING My opponent's points regarding tree climbing can all be answered with a simple analogy. Can I climb a bonsai tree? My opponent suggests that this parameter of his can apply to any sort of tree, and that no matter what, anything designated as "tree" will be completely climbable. I find this absurd. The act of climbing a tree is very common and I am sure we all know how the act is done. I find it very impractical to take this parameter and expand it unjustly. Yes, I may be well capable of climbing trees, but to be able to climb a tree that cannot be climbed using ordinary tree-climbing means is clearly not supported by this parameter. As for my opponent's suggestion of using the knife and wrapping my legs around the tree, but neglects that my weak leg strength is detrimental to this process. Assuming I have the force to drive the knife well into the tree, I would need a substantial amount of force to drive the knife out. This forceforce would propell me backwards as I am trying to grip the tree with my feeble legs and cause me to topple off the tree. LODGE HOUSES I point out that my opponent's plan to use the lodgehouse as a way to stall for time is indeed a violation of the 30-minute prep time because it takes place before the battle has begun. My opponent's suggestion is that I sit and hide in a lodgehouse to wait it out. Obviously, this must take place before the battle because otherwise, the bear will most likely catch up to me before I can make it into the lodgehouse. Thus, since I am buying time before I encounter the bear, I am prolonging the alotted 30-minute preparation time stated in the resolution. Second, I point out the violation of my opponent's suggestion that I hide from lodgehouse to lodgehouse. If I am in a safe area and the bear has left, the battle is in effect, over, and no vanquishing has been done. It is simply stalemate. We must assume that this bear has the sole purpose of trying to kill me and will be unfazed by other purposes. In addition, the bear could just as easily crash through a door and kill me. This makes the lodgehouse argument a poor one. VITAL SPOTS My opponent has admitted that the vital spots argument he made relied on the argument that I can latch onto the bear. As I have already made an argument against my ability to latch onto the bear, and my opponent has not responded to it, then the rest of his argument is similarly dismissed. To provide an actual point, I simply point out that the measured, precise movements that my opponent details are simply not feasible. While it is possible that administered perfectly, the plan is not feasible because the slightest digression from perfection would lead to certain death. ANIMAL CRUELTY This is where my opponent has misinterpreted my argument. My opponent is attempting to argue that if things go a certain way, in a certain fashion, then the outcome will be victory. If things go perfectly, then of course a positive outcome shall be possible. However, this is barring outside circumstances. A feasible plan must be both possible in conception and possible barring outside circumstances. My hesitation to harm this bear may cost me a full second or so of action which will decide whether I live or die. My opponent is focusing only on the feasibility of the plan and not the feasibility of execution to the standards that he sets. MY SIZE A bear's forearms and shoulders are considerably stronger since it walks on all four legs and supports its weight in that fashion. Despite my opponent's video evidence of size or shape, this does not negate the fact that in order to subdue an average sized grizzly bear, I would need strength far above and beyond what my opponent has listed in the parameters. THE THREE EXAMPLES The fact remains that in each instance, there were definite advantages that were deciding factors. In addition, as I have said before, these were black bears which are considerably weaker than grizzly bears, and the last one of which was a grizzly that was shot twice. The fact that the bear did not seem fazed is irrelevant, because metal tearing through flesh *will* have an effect. These stories are negligible because they bear little similarity to my case. FIRE My opponent's proposal to use fire is a good one. The problem is that I am sure all the inhabitants of that lodge as well as the people overseeing that lodge will do everything in their power to keep me from setting fire to the lodge, or luring the bear inside, or stealing their food. If I admit to my purposes, they would most likel see me as insane and call park services to dispatch the bear, robbing me of my victory and leaving me incarcerated for trying to endanger the welfare of others. ************************ As it stands, we have now spent several days thinking, plotting, planning, trying to come up with ways to vanquish this bear. Alas, even the combined efforts of us two bright, knowledgable people, along with the great database of the internet, we cannot develop a plan that is BOTH feasible in conception and feasible on execution. Admittedly, my opponent comes up with some very good plans, ones that might well work if we did not consider my own weaknesses. If I were a predictable automaton with precise physical motions and actions, then some of the combat techniques MIGHT be feasible. However, I am not. My weaknesses and flaws, as well as an extremely high amount of uncertainties make my opponent's suggestions highly impractical. Now, with all the testimony, it is up to you, the audience, to ask yourselves some questions. 1. With all that was discussed, is it FEASIBLE that I can think up these ideas all by myself, within 30 minutes? 2. Since this several-day-long discussion has yielded no fruit, would it be FEASIBLE to say that I will cancel out these plans and proceed to one that works? 3. If you honestly believe that one of these plans my opponent listed is a good one, is it FEASIBLE to say that *I* would come up with it by myself and implement it perfectly? Taking into account the depth, the precision, the detail, and the length of time involved in this fruitless discussion, you must understand that it simply is NOT FEASIBLE for me to conceive of, develop, and implement the perfect plan out of thousands of possible ideas leading to my certain death. So while I thank Logical_Master for using his brainpower in an attempt to lead me to glorious victory, I must conclude that such a plan is simply not feasible. I will most likely ask a Park Ranger to remove the bear and lead me to safety. Afterall, who knows me better than myself? Thank you to the Audience and to my opponent.