Mimes ought to have a voice in Congress.

I don't have much time to write this; I crave my opponent and audience's indulgence should I slip in my haste. Has been an interesting debate so far, and I thank my opponent for it. My opponent treats each of the premises of my argument as individual arguments, and holds them up for ridicule. Certainly, each on their own do not prove my case; taken together, however, they make the incontrovertible point that Mimes ought to have representation of their own in Congress. Perhaps that was the reason I put them together into an elongated syllogism? He finds supposed fallacies with each of my premises, treating them each erroneously as separate arguments; however, he admits the truth of my premises in his rebuff. Those points are premises, underlying statements of fact supporting a larger logical argument. He does not refute their accuracy, only their application; which when all of them are taken together cannot be denied to be correct. He insists on taking them separately, thereby committing his own fallacy, that of the strawman. Taking my opponent's arguments: 1. "My opponents attack on my first argument suggests that mimes are a suffering diverse people...." Which my opponent now denies. He could have challenged my statements about this in his first round; an attentive challenger would have picked up on my emphasis on the sufferings of the American Mime. Now, he puts his unbacked word against mine. He says there is no discrimination against Mimes; I say that there is. "Mimes have no need for a spot in congress, else they would choose not to be mimes." And my opponent gives a classic example of it. I hold this point has been affirmed by his own words. 2. "My opponent, I'm afraid, is vastly confused as to the implications behind my second point. My opponent assumes that I am saying no minority should have a right in congress, when I am in fact saying, why just mimes? What makes a mime more important than a biker, and his rights?" and "Again, if mimes should get a spot in congress so should everyone else." YES! By George, I believe he's got it; give the gentleman a prize! This is the whole point, the one he refuses to get. If union bosses and lawyers and liars and conmen and bankers and CEO's and all the rich and powerful people get to hold office, or own someone who does; why do bikers and grandmas and cookie chefs and street urchins and scuba divers and beggars and prostitutes and yes, even the lowly Mime not have someone of their own to speak for them? Why does my opponent think this is such an unthinkable thing, that everyone get some representation, instead of only the elite being represented? Yes, Mimes and EVERYONE ELSE should have their place in Congress. No-one should be excluded. My argument in this debate was centered around the Mime, not the pimp or the window-washer; but the logic works the same for any and all classes, races, causes and creeds. What justification could there possibly be for the elitist view that only the rich are worthy to rule? In short, because I sadly have no time to go long, the logic that would exclude a Mime from Congress today is the same that would exclude a tile-layer or an accountant tomorrow. Voters, choose wisely. Choose the rational option. Choose sanity. "For all these reasons, I strongly urge the voters to vote pro." I heartily concur.