Any given person should do debate (details below)

"The pro side is ignoring my last argument entirely. The "copy & paste" statement refers to your first argument. Look at your source. You copied an pasted the entire source. " a. It's not an argument. It's a statement that has no weigh in on the round. b. So what? Why does it matter? If anything it's good to give context. I don't understand why my opponent is so irked by the fact that I copied a source. "As for the resolution, you did not specify in the actual resolution who/what is being referred to. It does not matter if you wrote the resolution, you can't discount the vast majority of the world: ANY GIVEN PERSON. Stop cheating by writing nonspecific resolutions, the writing off your opponents as whiners when you try to limit the scope of a pre-written resolution. " Oh, so now you're saying I did not specify in the resolution. Ugh. I tried to avoid this silly argument by adding (Details below) to the resolution. But my opponent, in his desperation to find ANYTHING against me, has brought up the argument. Therefore I rebut: I specified that the any given person would be restricted to the average american kid. I also stated specifically that was basically the condition of the resolution. I didn't want to write a huge resolution: "Any given person who is an american kid that has enough time should do debate. " So I just wrote (details below) and specified it. I was being specific. "Let me get this straight. You want to say any given person should do debate, yet we should exclude: 1. anyone who is not a teenager 2. not an American The framework itself shows that the pro side feels cornered, and the only way to win is to twist the resolution out of context entirely" a. Yes, I do want to exclude those two things. Plus exclude anyone without enough time. Again, I am the instigator. I make the standards. If the contender can't debate with the standards, he/she should not accept the debate. It is my opponent's fault that he can't debate this properly. b. "Cornered"? It just means I think it unwise, again, for a bum in India to take up debate. It's hard to debate against facts. And I did not twist the resolution. The conditions I wrote were PART OF THE RESOLUTION. "At this point, I am getting tired of the Pro side's poor conduct, stating disappointment, and whining. So let's clear this up. The pro side lied about copy/paste. The pro side cheats in changing the focus of debate, mid-round. " Poor conduct? I am merely stating facts. You were whining because you couldn't beat my arguments. Plain and simple. Lying about copy and paste: This was completely a misunderstanding. Let's look at the way you phrased it the first time. "I'm sorry, I did not know that we would be debating this round by copying and pasting all of our main points without any actual participation on our part. " What this makes me think is that we've all been copying and pasting for the last few rounds. Not just the first speech. If he had said this during the first round, I would have understood his meaning. But he stated it long after I had copied a source. Now, let's look at what I said in response to the silly point. "How so? I just responded to my opponent's points with several responses. I did not copy and paste. Yet again, my opponent is providing a illogical statement. " Do you see anywhere in there that I'm denying I copied and pasted the benefits of debate from a source in the FIRST speech? No, I merely denied that I copied and pasted the second round's speech. Which is obviously truth. Nowhere did I lie. Lastly, who cares if I copied from a source? That's what evidence is for, right? My point was that debate is beneficial. I needed a source stating the benefits of debate. So I copied that source. Nothing wrong. My opponent is flustered at me for backing up my point with evidence. How queer. "The pro side cheats in changing the focus of debate, mid-round" How did I change the focus of debate? If you're referring to the fact that I limited the resolution in my FIRST speech, then just stop. I specifically said "Details below", which is translated as "I'm going to show you what I mean by this resolution". As you can see, I haven't cheated. On the other hand, my opponent has not responded to any of my arguments yet. Therefore they still flow to me. "Finally, relating to my original case, my opponent is clearly mentally retarded, and should clearly not debate, because he cannot do it fairly. " And now he resorts to ad hominem. If I'm clearly refuting each of his arguments and he's not responding and I'm mentally retarded, what does that make him? I'm actually laughing right now. "Mentally retarded". Wow, better let it go or I'll die of laughter. What do we see from this? My opponent has just called me a liar, cheater, and a retard. If that is not misconduct, I do not know what is. Have I called him a retard, liar, or cheater? No. Yet he says I have misconduct for saying he was whining. Sigh. Voting issues Voting issues are basically issues in this round that I believe flow to me and therefore justify voting for me. Voting issue 1. Net benefits Basically, my opponent brought up a couple of arguments in round 1 which were actually getting close to real arguments. But I showed how they do not apply or just don't make sense. Also, he has not contested the benefits of debate. The closest he got to contesting them was that debate. org does not provide these benefits. But I went through them and showed how it does indeed. So clearly my position has the net benefit, and my opponent has not provided a reason why it doesn't. The fact that he completely dropped his arguments shows that he either (1) concedes with me or (2) did not know what to say because I adequately responded to them. Because of this issue alone, I ask that you would vote Pro. Voting issue 2. Misconduct My opponent called me a liar, cheater, and retard. The closest I got to calling him names was that he was whining and I pointed it out. We are supposed to debate with respect for each other, not calling each other names with not much reason. I also distinctly pointed out that I am indeed NOT a liar, I did not cheat, and there's no reason to believe I'm a mental retard. (If I was a mental retard, why does that matter anyways)? Because of my opponent's severe misconduct, I would ask that you vote Pro. Summary Alas, Con has one last chance to throw ad hominems and complain about my resolution (which he accepted by choosing me to debate). Please do not be blinded by his random insults. Also, if he brings up new points, I would ask that you mark him down even more for misconduct.