If your girlfriend were a rational woman, she would french kiss me while you watch.

Deaths per Day:166,279

• Hour:6,928
  
• Minute:115
  
• Second:1.92
  

In order for pro to have a foundational case, he must provide evidence that I, in fact, have a girlfriend. 

• If it is the case that I do not have a girlfriend, or that pro is unable to show evidence that I do, the resolution inherently fails because the subject of the debate does not exist in reality making the assertion epistemically impossible. 
  

The gene-centred view of evolution that Dawkins championed and crystallized is now central both to evolutionary theorizing and to lay commentaries on natural history such as wildlife documentaries. A bird or a bee risks its life and health to bring its offspring into the world not to help itself, and certainly not to help its species — the prevailing, lazy thinking of the 1960s, even among luminaries of evolution such as Julian Huxley and Konrad Lorenz — but (unconsciously) so that its genes go on. Genes that cause birds and bees to breed survive at the expense of other genes. No other explanation makes sense, although some insist that there are other ways to tell the story (see K. Laland et al. Nature 514, 161–164; 2014).

What stood out was Dawkins's radical insistence that the digital information in a gene is effectively immortal and must be the primary unit of selection. No other unit shows such persistence — not chromosomes, not individuals, not groups and not species. These are ephemeral vehicles for genes, just as rowing boats are vehicles for the talents of rowers (his analogy).

For pro to have a foundational case, he must provide evidence that I, in fact, have a girlfriend. 

• If it is the case that I do not have a girlfriend, or that pro is unable to show evidence that I do, the resolution inherently fails because the subject of the debate does not exist in reality making the assertion epistemically impossible. 
  

No. This is an 'if-then' debate. In other words, if Con lacks a girlfriend it is as irrelevant as if Con had a girlfriend who was not a rational woman. 

The reason I structured it how I did is that the girlfriend of 'you' is a presumed entity present here and the if is about her being a rational woman.

So, I deny I have an STI/STD at present, I deny she would catch one from me, and am innocent until proven guilty, surely. 

I assert that we should presume she got STIs already from Con and that she's on limited time anyway and should enjoy her last few days by experimenting as much as possible if it's life-threatening 

I could even say she attends a blood test with me at the hospital for STI testing and that that in no shape or form is ruled out as a prerequisite for the resolution's actions to take place.

I would like to assert that I am a fertile man (adult male human)

I will state here the points of my case that show that pro has not upheld his burden of proof. 

• We don't know if pro has dangerous STDs or not, and he has not shown that he is free of them. 
  

At-home STI testing

At-home test kits for certain STIs, such as HIV, chlamydia and gonorrhea, have been gaining acceptance and popularity. For home STI testing, you collect a urine sample or an oral or genital swab and then send it to a lab for analysis.

Some tests require more than one sample. The benefit of home testing is that you're able to collect the sample in the privacy of your home without the need for a pelvic exam or office visit.

However, tests done on samples you collect yourself may have a higher rate of false-positive results, meaning that the test indicates you have an STI that you really don't have. If you test positive from a home test, contact your doctor or a public health clinic to confirm the test results. If your home test results are negative, but you're experiencing symptoms, contact your doctor or a public health clinic to confirm the results.

Positive test results

If you test positive for an STI, the next step is to consider further testing and then get treatment as recommended by your doctor. In addition, inform your sex partners. Your partners need to be evaluated and treated, because you can pass some infections back and forth.

Expect to feel many emotions. You may feel ashamed, angry or afraid. It may help to remind yourself that you've done the right thing by getting tested so that you can inform your partners and get treated. Talk with your doctor about your concerns.

• Pro has not proven my girlfriend exists in reality. 
  

What Is the Subjunctive Mood? (with Examples)
The subjunctive mood is the verb form used to explore a hypothetical situation (e.g., "If I were you") or to express a wish, a demand, or a suggestion (e.g., "I demand he be present").

• We don't know pro's age, and the pro does not know the potential age of this woman. Pro could be 32 and this woman could potentially be 15, or vice versa. As children can't give consent [4], it is not rational to engage in non-consensual relationships.
  

• We don't know if pro is a male or female, and pro does not know this woman's sexuality. It is not rational to override your inherent sexuality.
  

• We don't know whether it is the rational choice to engage in such sexual activity with pro. Pro mentions "high-value males," yet has shown no evidence that he is such, or far from a reprehensible person such as a wife-beater, drug addict, or alcoholic. 
  

I would also like to point out I did not say was but were. 

What Is the Subjunctive Mood? (with Examples)

The subjunctive mood is the verb form used to explore a hypothetical situation (e.g., "If I were you") or to express a wish, a demand, or a suggestion (e.g., "I demand he be present").

To make it clearer why The Kritik from Con is fallacious and against the entiree spirit of debating, let's observe how this works in a more 'normal' or 'standard' hypothetical.

'If [Obama] were president of Ukraine right now, he would have surrendered.'

This is never going to be allowed by voters to be won by a Kritik 'but Obama isn't Ukranian'and that's actually a stronger Kritik than Con is using here. Instead, Con's Kritik reads as 'but Obama isn't in Ukraine right now'. That is literally what is going on here.

I said in prior Round that she can come to my STI test with me. All countries have them these days. Where are we kissing? US?

It is also not rational for you to be in a relationship with an underage woman, I am not sure where you're going with that. You see, if you were so young you had to worry about discussing doing these things, you shouldn't have accepted. If you aren't and are going for someone who is that young, well that's your problem to justify to the audience why you did that. 

What is that meant to mean? I am a male

• We don't know whether it is the rational choice to engage in such sexual activity with pro. Pro mentions "high-value males," yet has shown no evidence that he is such, or far from a reprehensible person such as a wife-beater, drug addict, or alcoholic. 
  

And where is your evidence that I am? If anything, you could be the wife-beater and I'm her way out. What exactly is the point of that statement?

why do we have no information Con?

The biggest aspect here is that the rational approach to pleasure and intimacy is to start at maximal experimentation and fluidity and work your way backwards, it isn't to start at a monogamous simplistic way of being and work your way up.

I. The rational approach to pleasure and intimacy is to start at maximal experimentation and fluidity

II. A rational woman seeks to experience all that she can and all that others can as long as it doesn't have an ending that definitely would deter.

I. What I am instead arguing is that a rational woman would realise that her fundamental role in our ecosystem is to garner high value males to spread their seed

II. she'd endure it for the sake of her scientific duty to the species and ecosystem

• In addition to dropping all contested points in the previous round, pro also drops my responses to his arguments meaning that pro has not come close to meeting the baseline of his burden of proof in this debate. 

• Dropped. 
• As pro has been unable to prove the existence of my girlfriend, the resolution fails inherently. 

In Round 1 I covered why getting an infection or even a disease wouldn't be an irrational risk to take. I also have said throughout that I'd test for STI's and STD's and claim to have none.

• Claiming to have none does not prove you have none. 
• Now in this the debate, pro is claiming that it would be the rational choice to engage in a sexual activity with him. Combining that with the fact that pro holds the entire burden of proof, he has to demonstrate that he is an individual of whom engaging in a sexual action with would be the rational decision. This commits pro to proving he is free of STDs. 

In Round 1 I covered why getting an infection or even a disease wouldn't be an irrational risk to take.

Pro is referring to when he stated in quote: "Even if she gets an STI, they don't kill instantly and she'd endure it for the sake of her scientific duty to the species and ecosystem." 

• However, I already responded to pro's argument from scientific duty twice showing that it is simply an extension of the is-ought gap fallacy. 
• Pro drops this, so I will simply extend my rebuttal. 
• We know how deadly STDs can be, and if pro is unable to provide the evidence we require to establish this as the rational choice, he has not met his burden of proof. 

A woman isn't a girl... As in the term 'girl' may apply to a woman colloquially but a woman is not a girl. 

• I don't see how this relates to the argument. Pro has not proven that my girlfriend is an adult or that she even exists. This is an argument against his own epistemology. 
  
• If my perceived girlfriend isn't an adult, that would also falsify the resolution. 

A woman is not underage and Con is not committing statutory rape or whatever else by this relationship.

• Pro has not even proven that this relationship exists, and thus, he is unable to affirm the resolution. 
• I extend my argument from age as pro simply has not refuted it. 
• Again, my perceived girlfriend could be underage, or pro could be underage. In either case she is giving herself to be raped or raping pro, and neither are rational decisions. 
  
• Even if she does not meet the threshold of age to be considered a woman, that would still make the resolution fail because the subjwct identified in the proposition does not exist in reality.
  
• Pro has shown no evidence of his age (such as a birth certificate) and has failed to justify his epistemology in respect to my perceived girlfriend's age, or even her existence. 
  

• Dropped.
• I extend my argument in respect to this contention. 

• Pro's case rests on the idea that rapid and constant sexual experimentation is the rational decision.
• In the previous round and in prior rounds, I show that this is irrefutably not the case.
• Pro drops my rebuttals towards this, so his argument fails. 
• I therefore, extend this counter argument. 

• Pro argued that women have a scientific duty or role twoards the species to engage in sex and reproduce. 
• Pro drops my rebuttal from the is-ought gap so I simply extend this counter argument. 
• Our verdict should be stand that as pro has dropped all rebuttals to his arguments, they have failed. 

• Pro's case rests on both of these points. As they have both been disproven, pro has not met his burden of proof. Remember that to win I don't even need to disprove the resolution, I just need to show it might not be true or that it is in doubt. 
• Regardless I have sufficiently disproven every aspect of pro's case. 

• My main arguments rest on a few key ideas. 

• For this reason, pro must prove that he is free of STDs, of a corresponding sexuality of a corresponding sex, and on an appropriate age etc. Pro holds the full burden of proof, and if he makes the extraordinary claim that this is the rational decision, he requires evidence to justify this. Evidence that would show this to be the rational choice beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly:

• Entailing that pro has lost if he is unable to prove that my girlfriend exists in reality. Pro has utterly failed to justify his epistemology and has dropped this posit of the debate in the previous round. 
• In fact, pro has dropped all of my arguments built on each respective syllogism and all nearly all of my rebuttals to his arguments. 
• Ultimately pro builds a case on two pillars that he has failed to justify as rational decisions, and as he has tentatively dropped the rebuttals to these pillars, pro has not come close to meeting the full burden of proof he bears.