From a debate judging standpoint Yraelz should win the Britney Spears debate with i-win-347.

Here is the debate

http://www.debate.com...

I stand in firm affirmation of the topic.

I don't see any reason as to why you should win in the first place, let alone to have the present decision overturned.

In your closing round you rely on the argument that no counseling could do her any good. You give me no reason to believe this. You make an unbsubstantiated claim, as does your opponent. "So she's not a lost cause"

This means this point is at best a wash.

Your opponent cites her inexplicably immense popularity. You give me no reason that we should throw her off of a bridge or why she is a lost cause. With your rather radical notion that she should take her own life, you need to give me at least SOME reason why.

Britney Spears has at least the right to the opportunity of help. You give me no reason to think otherwise, losing the debate.

Unless, in the later rounds of this debate, you can point out some reason that you provided that would outweigh your opponents logic, I don't see why you should win.

Alright.

============
Point 1: My opponent and I in the Britney debate both offered unsubstantiated claims. This is true, thus both claims should have the same impact.

My opponents claim was: Britney spears needs counseling.
My claim was: It's too late for Britney spears.

So let us consider these claims a wash like you said. This means that my opponent no longer has the point, "Britney spears needs counseling." Which if we look to the resolution, "Brittney Spears needs to have serious counseling." We can see that he/she obviously no longer is supporting the resolution.

Thus, I as the Con win by default, as the Pro has absolutely nothing backing his/her statement up.

=============
Point 2: My opponent cites her popularity and I give no reason why she should go off a bridge.

This is rather untrue as I do give a reason. My opponent does cite her immense popularity and I agree with him. I further this by saying that even if she takes her own life her songs, and thereby her popularity, will remain. Finally I promote the fact that taking her own life by jumping from a bridge will actually make her more popular. Thus if my opponents paradigm, that of popularity, is what we judge this round on, I am actually doing a better job of upholding the paradigm.

Back at you.

Point 1:

You mistake which claims are a wash.

The claims "Britney is a lost cause" and "Britney is a lost cause" are unsubstantiated, not whether or not she needs counseling.

Your opponent's central claim is "Britney needs counseling". Your sole refute is that "Britney is a lost cause". So, if we call the 'lost cause' point a wash, we have no reason to object to your opponents claim.

Also, he gives us reason, in his opening argument, to allow for counseling. You never deny her emotional instability, attention-mongering, or potential harm and damage causing.

=====================

Framework:

At this point, the popularity argument comes second to whether or not she is a lost cause because the 'lost cause' argument gives us reason to counsel/not counsel, while the popularity argument simply applies to your alternative. Her popularity has nothing to do with whether or not we should counsel, just whether or not the Earth should be rid of her.

=====================

Point 2:

You don't make any argument that says she will become MORE popular by jumping off a bridge. You simply say "her entertainment will still remain". This means you don't hold up the popularity argument any better than your opponent. In fact, he makes the argument that she will make more entertaining ventures if she doesn't kill herself, making your opponent more effective on the popularity argument.

So, since you don't make the 'more popular after suicide argument' (please point it out if you did), the slightest extra entertainment she provides after not killing herself wins PRO the arg, since not killing herself is more entertaining.

============

Thus, you both lose the argument that Spears is a lost cause, washing it out. This means PRO's statement 'Spears needs counseling' is not refuted. This alone loses you the debate. Still, your alternative is lost as well. PRO states that Spears will continue to provide entertainment (serve some purpose) while you merely allow for her past ventures to 'live on'. PRO allows for more entertainment, making your alternative not viable.

As this will be my final round I will request that my opponent does not bring up new points in his final round as I would have no chance to respond.

Having said this I will cover each of my opponents points in turn.

Point 1:

My opponent states that I did not understand which points were a wash, to refute this I must point out that my opponent did not understand how many points I originally put forth. He is stating that I was objecting to Britney Spears needing consoling by saying she is a lost cause, this is not true. I had two objections to Britney Spears needing consoling, I will quote both:

a. "No amount of counseling could ever console Britney Spears."

b. "She is, as Stephen Colbert called Baghdad, a lost cause."

My opponent in that round responded to exactly one of these two, he responded with,

"So she's not a lost cause and neither is Baghdad."

This response was quite clearly aimed at my response b. my opponent in that round made absolutely no response to my a. argument and thereby conceded the point to my side.

Thus even if my point b. and i-win-347's response were a wash I still have point a., something i-win-347 never challenged in anyway.

All that i-win-347 did was state reasons why Britney may need consoling, thus our debate ultimately on this point would look like this.

i-win-347: Britney needs consoling because of these 4 reasons (insert)!
Yraelz: No.... If Britney received consoling it would not help her.
i-win-347: (Does not respond)
Yraelz: Like I said.

============

Framework: I agree with my opponents framework therefor there is no reason to continue the debate after point 1.