Multiple stab wounds may be harmful to monkeys.

I can only feel that there is a strong possibility that multiple stab wounds may be harmful to monkeys. I await for what rebuttal my opponent could possibly have.

The opponent does not specify with what the stabbing would be done with, or indeed where. So he leaves that up to myself.

The monkeys would be stabbed with cotton buds in the stomach. As they would have no effect I now conclude that they would not be harmful to the monkeys.

Try and debate yourself out of that :P

Ah, this would be true excluding the fact that my resolution quite clearly states, "stab wounds".

Thus the stabbing must leave a wound, which would not be scene through the use of a cotton bud. However we should also notice that my opponent does not limit the stabbing to just cotton buds so I am going to include sharp objects which would definitely leave a wound.

As this resolution is not limited to any particular place I am going to include the throat and eye socket with my opponents, "stomache".

And, as a final note, I will be citing this as evidence:

http://youtube.com...

Darn it!!! Am I destined to lose every single debate!?!

Multible stab wounds may not be harmful to monkeys. How you may ask? Well I'm citing THIS as evidence

http://www.freewebs.com...

Hmmm.... My opponent posts what appears to be a credible source, yet it is credible in my favor.

Let us take a look at the conclusion of this source:

"From the intellegent ramblings of Dr Kiedkjhksj kjhkghabka we are to assume and follow blindly the fact that "Multible Stab Wounds May Not Harm Monkeys""

I stand in firm affirmation of this statement as it does not negate my statement in any way. My resolution says that "stab wounds may" which means the other side of this card is, "stab wounds may not".

My resolution urges mere possibility which at the same time means that everything else is still also possible. A relative example would be like me flipping a coin and saying, "This coin may land on heads". This is true, but if my opponent was to say, "This coin may land on tails" it would only further my point by showing the possibility inherent in my first statement.

"My resolution urges mere possibility which at the same time means that everything else is still also possible. A relative example would be like me flipping a coin and saying, "This coin may land on heads". This is true, but if my opponent was to say, "This coin may land on tails" it would only further my point by showing the possibility inherent in my first statement"

Oh dear, thats really confusing me here, good tactics Yraelz (if you can't beat 'em, confuse 'em!) but I could just say the exact same thing back to you.

Another relative example would be like me flipping a coin and saying, "This coin may not land on heads". This is true, but if my opponent was to say, "This coin may not land on tails" it would only further my point by showing the possibility inherent in my first statement

Yes it's a slightly changed around unquoted form of what you just said, but plagiarism isn't against the rules (in THIS debate anyway) so.... What I'm really saying is... Em... I'm stating that... Uhhh...

VOTE CON (SUPPORT THE PLAGIARIST!) OR YOU'RE A... em... nonplagiarist? :D