TheLwerd is a decent human being with a good head on her shoulders.

[ Definitions ] I'll agree with my opponent's proposed definitions as well as provide some of my own. A) Standard: A rule or principle that is used for the basis of judgment B) Decent: Respectable; Worthy; Adequate Because both mine and my opponent's definitions are both correct and both feasible for discussion in terms of this debate, it would only be fair to accept BOTH of our proposed definitions. Let's begin. [ Rebuttal ] 1. Decency Con believes that I do not fit the description of "decent" because I do not conform to traditional standards of morality. First, let's observe that through my proposed definition, his reasoning (my support of gay marriage, for example) does not stand -- I can still be a respectable, worthy and adequate person despite my avocation for such issues. Moreover, I believe I can be considered a decent person even by my opponent's proposed definition. In order to do so, I must simply hold similar values to moral standards. However, morality cannot be measured simply by a majority opinion; it is fallacious to assume that the majority belief is always correct (moral) via the argumentum ad populum citation of faulty logic. You cannot conclude a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it. In other words, even if more people are opposed to gay marriage than are for it, it does not necessarily make that ideal the moral choice meaning I can still conform to moral standards without conforming to the majority opinion. Further proof of this issue is the very definition of 'standard' itself, which reads - a rule or principle that is used as the basis of judgment. Nowhere is the majority opinion considered an absolute standard for morality OR decency via my opponent's definition or my own. 2. Good Head :P Con begins by noting that what's "good" is subjective. Therefore, even if we were to ignorantly assume that the head displayed in my profile picture was my own, clearly you cannot prove that a "warpy" head is not a good head. First of all, it is a drawing - not a photo - meaning that whether the head was warpy or not has no bearing on the actual head's (the basis for the drawing) function. .. which, by the way, is Johnny Depp's. Second, the warped head may be a visual distortion of the artist or even you - the viewer - which again says nothing about the character's head. Finally, Con cannot prove that the displayed head is my own, OR that my actual head is "warpy. " This point is null and void. 3. Head and Shoulders My opponent proposes that my head is not indeed on my shoulders; it is on my neck. Let's begin by noting that my opponent cannot actually prove that my head is on my neck, as there are people who suffer from a condition where what is supposed to be their neck bone is actually fused with their shoulders, thus not allowing them to turn their head. Since a neck is merely defined as narrowed region of the body connecting the head to the trunk by encyclopedia. com, this may very well be the case for me. However, I'd like to acknowledge the fact that I do indeed have a working neck (though my opponent nor myself cannot prove it to be so). That said, simply because my head is on my neck does not mean that my head is not on my shoulders. Let's use my opponent's example and usage of the word 'On' from his proposed definition. He uses the example of a book lying ON the table. However, what if there were a table cloth on that table? The book would then actually be ON the table cloth. Moreover, the book would still be ON the table. We can apply this analogy to my head. My head is both on my neck and my shoulders; the neck merely connects the two. Thus if your parent were to say, "My job puts food on the table," they may literally mean "My job puts food on the plate on the table. " Still, the first claim that food is on the table is still correct. Likewise, my head may very well be on my neck, but it is still on my shoulders via the connection. Back to Con.