The Instigator
Con (against)
6 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Can PiercedPanda prove he is not "urapai"?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 703 times Debate No: 45973
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I have the strong and founded suspicion that PiercedPanda is also the user "urapai", and I think he won't be able to disprove this.
I will take the con side.
First round is for acceptance only.
Second round is for con initial argument and pro initial argument - no rebuttals in round 2!
Third round is for rebuttals and final statements.

Failure to comply with the rules is an instant loss.

Got the heart?


I accept. But seriously, I am not urapai.
Debate Round No. 1


The question, dear opponent, is not whether you "seriously" are "not urapai", the question is: Will you be able to prove it?

The facts:
The user urapai joined two months ago. His last debate was a month ago:

urapai first came to the attention of others a month ago, when he forfeited a large number of debates:

PiercedPanda joined a few days later:

He defended urapai, with his first post in the forum:

Since that day, urapai's ONLY activity was to support PiercedPanda in his debates:
Neither has he led any new debates, nor has he supported anyone else.

I checked this.

urapai has voted on ten debates, all debates of PiercedPanda:

Through urapai's votes, PiercedPanda has won those debates, because urapai gave an insanely high amount of points to PiercedPanda, despite the other voters NOT seeing a wide difference between the contestants.

In the case that brought me on PiercedPanda's track, particularly, his votes also made no sense at all:
From urapai's reason for voting: "And as I have notices, pro had better S&G, because of con's various lower case letters at the beginning of sentences."
While THIS was what PiercedPanda posted on his first round:
"First round, con states points

Second round, pro rebuttals and states points
con rebuttals and states points, makes final arguments

Third round, pro rebuttals and states final arguments
Con must write "no round as agreed upon"

Failure to follow these rules will result in an automatic 7 point lost."

No periods, lower case letter in the third line, a grammatical error "in an automatic 7 point lost" (should have been "loss"). Surely, a neutral person would have weighed these harder than a casual "lower case"-typo. Most striking about this is that PiercedPanda pointed this typo out in his final argument - which has nothing to do with the debate itself and is left for the voters to decide and urapai jumped on it.

Finally, urapai has messages disabled, but he was instantly here in this discussion to offer alleged proof that he and PiercedPanda are not the same person. But if there is no way urapai could be reached, how could he be so quick to add a comment? PiercedPanda, of course, received my invitation. And naturally, since he's urapai and felt the need to defend himself in the forum a month back (see above), he could not be here fast enough to cleanse himself of any suspicion. This is the final evidence, delivered to us, because bad liars always overdo it.

So, we have a lot of indications that these two are the same person. And while this is no proof of their identity, I claim it impossible for PiercedPanda to present proof to the contrary. To address all this to coincidence would be fairly impossible.
Since PiercedPanda accepted this debate, I am thrilled to see his approach to prove that he has any possibility of proving he and urapai are not the same person.

I also claim that "urapai" voting on this debate will be further evidence of their identity, since PiercedPanda's need to be clean of suspicion on EITHER of his personae borders the pathological. Only a very desperate person would prepare for a scam of these proportions for months and then blow his cover by publicly defending his alias in both directions, further documenting their connection - first in the forum, now in the comments of this debate.



PiercedPanda forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Conceded by forfeit, my arguments stand and are extended.
I would like to add that PiercedPanda has given his age as 110 years, which is highly unlikely:

So, I come to the conclusion that my opponent is indeed unable to prove that PiercedPanda will be able to prove he's not "urapai".


PiercedPanda forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Senatus 3 years ago
Regardless of whether or not Urapai is actually Piercedpanda, I think that we can all agree that Urapai has ignored DDO rules and should be banned. I, for one, luckily won my first debate against Piercedpanda by reporting Urapai's vote. If in fact, Piercedpanda is not Urapai, than I apologize to Piercedpanda. Watch out for Urapai's votes, because they are not legit.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Nevermind, I took a closer look. That is very suspicious. All those ridiculous S&G points for silly reasons also lol.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
From what I've seen, and I haven't looked too hard, your voting seems fair. There is certain people's debates I enjoy reading and voting on and typically I vote in their favor because typically they've done a better job then their opponent. There is certainly no conspiracy. So I feel for you Utapai.
Posted by urapai 3 years ago
I am not piercedpanda, I'm just a bit biased toward him. He is a good debater in my opinion, though nothing compared to people like Mikal. I am not piercedpanda.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: Con had enough sources to prove his case well. Convincing Argument: Con's argument was pretty solid, and refuted. Conduct: Pro FF'd every round.