Brent Musburger Does NOT Deserve the Julia Gillard Reproach!

My curiosity has been satisfied. My opponent has proffered a spirited attack against the resolution. The spirit is embodied by the picture of Julia Gillard herself, flipping the bird at whomever crossed her, probably Tony Abbott. However, just like how it is inexplicable as to how or why this picture (with no caption, no explanation) has any relevance to the resolution, so I find my opponent's arguments equally lacking.RebuttalCON has staked her attack on the notion that people are offended, and therefore Musburger DESERVES the Julia Gillard reproach. This seems to be logical, but unfortunately is not. Although CON points out that "clearly Musburger's comments were "offensive" to the extent that they offended people," CON also stipulates that "whether or not Pro or I personally find Musburger's comments offensive is irrelevant to this debate." So which one is it? Why is my opinion, or CON's opinion on this matter irrelevant, whereas the opinions of others ARE relevant? Why isn't Webb's opinion relevant? What about YOUR opinion? Whose opinion exactly IS relevant? The logic here escapes me. CON does not explain any of this in any detail.Thankfully, the point is unimportant. What the resolution asks is not whether or not people were offended - of course some people were offended, and of course no one contests this, including PRO. However, the resolution asks "Does Brent Musburger DESERVE the Julia Gillard Reproach?" Everything in my round #2 statements adamantly argues that Musburger does NOT deserve the Julia Gillard reproach. He does NOT deserve to have someone condemn his behavior for 15 minutes while observing parliamentary protocol by not interrupting the speaker, because he did not do anything worthy of condemnation in the first place. His statements were neither sexist nor misogynistic. His statements were honest, and not hypocritical. CON has dropped all of these arguments and has left them uncontested. Is this my opinion? Yes, but it is more than that now - it is also now established fact. I set forth numerous definitions in round #2, all of which CON chose not to contest. I demonstrated how Musburger's comments were neither sexist nor misogynistic - "beautiful" is a word one can use to describe family members. CON left this uncontested.What CON has done here is precisely what I prohibited in round #1. She has attempted to frame my argument for me, while attempting to dismiss my own framework as "irrelevant". Unfortunately for CON, my framework is imminently relevant, as it delves into the heart of the resolution by focusing on whether or not Musburger DESERVES such condemnation, not whether or not such condemnation is occurring. ---I will now address CON's various sources:1) Sue Carter argues that "the appearance of the quarterback’s girlfriend had no bearing on the outcome of the game." I will argue that it does. Was Katherine Webb's appearance offensive? Did she jump up and down and scream at at the field, the camera, and the audience, while throwing rotten tomatoes or cabbage at the opposing team? No, she didn't. Throughout the 30 seconds of face-time afforded to her, her appearance was indeed appropriate, and beautiful. Her appearance, both in physically being there and in its appropriateness and its beauty, lent moral support to the quarterback of the winning team, and contributed to the team's victory.2) The second unnamed source: "Way over the line. I don't dislike Brent Musberger at all, but I have no idea what was going on there." Let me flesh this out with the original CNN article linked in round #1: "The only criticism that's arguably fair is Musburger's implication that if you are [a] great quarterback, you will have earned a beautiful woman -- a reward, more than a human being. If that had been Musburger's intention, that, of course, would have been wrong. "However, if you listen to the actual broadcast, you can clearly tell from Musburger's tone that that was not his point. C'mon, we all know the difference between when people are being playful and when they are being hateful. " I will add some simple reasoning to this. The camera panned to Webb, appropriate since she is the significant other of the quarterback of the winning team (see point #1). The announcers had 30 seconds to say something. They knew she was Miss Alabama, and probably not much else. WOW, SHE'S BEAUTIFUL. I LIKE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE. End of story. Back to the game now...---Finally, I will give a comparative on beauty (videos):http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...There is something striking about Webb's appearance - her intelligence, her demeanor, her frankness, her APPROPRIATENESS - that all lends to beauty. There is also something striking about Miss South Carolina's appearance - her inability to answer a simple question coherently - that does NOT lend to beauty. To express heartfelt admiration of such beauty is totally appropriate, and not deserving of the Julia Gillard reproach.