That song is from the great YeshuaBought via Sia, oh yes indeed... See how that works? I can say she's anyone or has done anything without proof and voila it's her awooooooha!
That user was, to my knowledge, not YeshuaBought. I am confused though, do you think you've provided a single argument so far? You know it's very bad conduct to bring new points in the last round right as it forces your opponent to either (If you're second) have no reply or (if you're first as in this case) to break the same rule in order to rebuke you... So, I hope you don't do that. ;)
The term 'unjust' has not been defined this entire debate by Pro and thus Con is entitled to be the one to define it.
If you describe an action, system, or law as unjust, you think that it treats a person or group badly in a way that they do not deserve. In other words, it means you FAIL TO TREAT THEM in a way that is equally without favouritism or discrimination as well as appropriate in the circumstances.
My opponent is stating an untruth (I don't think it's lying, it's genuine failure to comprehend a word's context) in that he says he was called a 'troll' but from both the context and exact wording it's extremely apparent that the user was appalled that someone she/he considered a non-troll was doing the trolling. This is why she/he was so distraught as to say:
You don't want your mind changed, you are just trolling a debate site and wasting my time. I am blocking you as soon as this goes to voting, because I am here to actually debate
- The user who is apparently YeshuaBought according to Pro.
The quote shows that she/he was completely shocked that a non-troll (meaning someone who she/he didn't expect to troll and who spent the first 2 Rounds completely unaware would take the debate the path he took it down). A troll would be the type of user you'd, from Round 1, expect to do this and who you would not plead with in the following way:
Yes we are. White people kidnapped black and Irish people, and illegally immigrated here against the wishes of NATIVES! Are you that ignorant that you don't even know this? You are not saying this about white immigrants, are you a racist?
Let's just observe what happened here. My client, YeshuaBought if she is that user which has yet to be proven decided to ask a rhetorical question in her closing statement towards Pro... She asked him 'are you a racist?' and the prosecution is telling you, Jury Members, that there is reason enough for the Judge to consider her guilty of calling him a racist. The point she was making is he was that you want to just 'kick out all the immigrants' without taking into consideration that they are equally, if not more as they work for less, beneficial to the economy and such than both the illegal Canadian immigrants from the northern border (who are mostly going to be white) and the legal immigrants who are white from around the world. She was saying that by constant omission and refusal to consider that illegal immigrants are, if they do work, just as good as the 'preferred immigrant types' which Pro was constantly hinting at (again via omission and ignoring the points of his opponent).
Even if she was incorrect that he doesn't dislike white immigrants as much as he dislikes the other ones, it's not unjust under the definition I gave at the start of this Round for her to have asked if he's racist and break out in culminated frustration that someone she expected so much from (as he's not a troll, this is clearly a shock to her that he's doing it). It is possible Pro may argue that it was his right to interpret that as her being shocked and then saying 'you're a troll, I'm blocking you' but she's completely just in doing so and it should be the right of every user to block another user and express frustration even if said blocking and frustration isn't in line with the views the blocked person has of their self-image and behaviour.
I stand here today, OH I STAND HERE I TELL YOU, Jury and ask you to vote with your conscience... Should we stop anyone having the right to express shock, frustration and perhaps... If one misconstrues it severely in the direction Pro wants... disgust with another user's behaviour should they not have every right and be considered just in doing so? A point that people get voted on in DDO is conduct (just like here) so she had to specify to voters in a strong way how to vote with regards to that so even in that sense it can be considered just (even if not optimal or the best way to carry oneself). My client is free of all charges, LET HER (if she is the user on DDO who did that which has yet to be proven) ROAM FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE