Every debate member of this site should get a friend to join this site.

Just a spontaneous idea, I think it would have an overall benefit to the debate.com community. Anyone have some sort of opposition?

My opponent argues that every debate.com member ought get a friend to join. My argument is that every debate.com member should get TWO friends to join. This is a completely doable task and will have twice the benefits.

Aye it is true, having two friends join this site would most likely double the benefit. However LakevillNorthJT has not done anything to contradict my case, instead he has confirmed it.

For instance if I were to post a sign stating, "Bring a friend to McDonalds" it would not suddenly be assumed that one can only bring one friend.

If I were to say, "Everyone who eats an orange shall be given a balloon" then the people who eat three oranges will still be given a balloon because they have ate an orange.

Which brings me to my next point. At some point during getting two friends to join debate.com one is going to have to pass through the point of getting one friend to join.

In other words the process of getting two friends to join debate.com can be broken up into two separate instances:

a. I have got a friend to join debate.com.
b. I have got another friend to join debate.com.

In both of these instances a friend has joined debate.com. Thus getting two friends or more to join debate.com falls under my resolution.

In conclusion my resolution, "Every debate member of this site should get a friend to join this site." Is not limited to just ONE friend. If my resolution said something to the effect of, "Every debate member of this site should get EXACTLY ONE friend to join this site" then my opponent would have a formidable case. As he doesn't, and as his case simply confirms my case, I can see nothing but a Pro vote. Thanks for everyone's time.

The resolution states that everyone should get A FRIEND to join. If we assume the resolution true, everyone needs to get a friend to join. Not friends but rather a friend. This means taht by bringing two friends instead of one, you are negating the resolution.

"For instance if I were to post a sign stating, "Bring a friend to McDonalds" it would not suddenly be assumed that one can only bring one friend. "

Under the wording of this sign, only one friend should be brought to McDonalds.

A FRIEND = 1
FRIENDS = 2+

Thus had the resolution said friends, my opponent would win.

"If I were to say, "Everyone who eats an orange shall be given a balloon" then the people who eat three oranges will still be given a balloon because they have ate an orange."

I would argue this is not true. The people eating three should be punished for breaking the rules.

For example, lets say a teacher says if you get 80 percent you get a B. Students who get 90 percent would not get a B but rather an A.

Using this logic, we see that my argument clearly negates the resolution.

" Which brings me to my next point. At some point during getting two friends to join debate.com one is going to have to pass through the point of getting one friend to join.

In other words the process of getting two friends to join debate.com can be broken up into two separate instances:

a. I have got a friend to join debate.com.
b. I have got another friend to join debate.com.

In both of these instances a friend has joined debate.com. Thus getting two friends or more to join debate.com falls under my resolution."

After the first step, the vote is pro. After the second, the vote is con. Bot of these steps MUST occur under my counterplan. The resolution says A FRIEND. After the two steps, you would have invited FRIENDS.

"In conclusion my resolution, "Every debate member of this site should get a friend to join this site." Is not limited to just ONE friend. If my resolution said something to the effect of, "Every debate member of this site should get EXACTLY ONE friend to join this site" then my opponent would have a formidable case. As he doesn't, and as his case simply confirms my case, I can see nothing but a Pro vote. Thanks for everyone's time.

A FRIEND limits the scope of the resolution. By extending this to two FRIENDS, I am contradicting the resolution which leads to a CON vote. Exactly one friend is the same as only one friend which the resolution implies.

VOTE CON

The resolution states that everyone should get A FRIEND to join. If we assume the resolution true, everyone needs to get a friend to join. Not friends but rather a friend. This means taht by bringing two friends instead of one, you are negating the resolution.

"For instance if I were to post a sign stating, "Bring a friend to McDonalds" it would not suddenly be assumed that one can only bring one friend. "

Under the wording of this sign, only one friend should be brought to McDonalds.

A FRIEND = 1
FRIENDS = 2+

Thus had the resolution said friends, my opponent would win.

"If I were to say, "Everyone who eats an orange shall be given a balloon" then the people who eat three oranges will still be given a balloon because they have ate an orange."

I would argue this is not true. The people eating three should be punished for breaking the rules.

For example, lets say a teacher says if you get 80 percent you get a B. Students who get 90 percent would not get a B but rather an A.

Using this logic, we see that my argument clearly negates the resolution.

" Which brings me to my next point. At some point during getting two friends to join debate.com one is going to have to pass through the point of getting one friend to join.

In other words the process of getting two friends to join debate.com can be broken up into two separate instances:

a. I have got a friend to join debate.com.
b. I have got another friend to join debate.com.

In both of these instances a friend has joined debate.com. Thus getting two friends or more to join debate.com falls under my resolution."

After the first step, the vote is pro. After the second, the vote is con. Bot of these steps MUST occur under my counterplan. The resolution says A FRIEND. After the two steps, you would have invited FRIENDS.

"In conclusion my resolution, "Every debate member of this site should get a friend to join this site." Is not limited to just ONE friend. If my resolution said something to the effect of, "Every debate member of this site should get EXACTLY ONE friend to join this site" then my opponent would have a formidable case. As he doesn't, and as his case simply confirms my case, I can see nothing but a Pro vote. Thanks for everyone's time.

A FRIEND limits the scope of the resolution. By extending this to two FRIENDS, I am contradicting the resolution which leads to a CON vote. Exactly one friend is the same as only one friend which the resolution implies.

VOTE CON