The Instigator
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
FalseReality
Pro (for)
Losing
33 Points

Kleptin, Logical-Master, and Yraelz are all the same person.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,484 times Debate No: 2889
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (58)
Votes (20)

 

Yraelz

Con

While I encourage the idea that we should all be the same debaters because it makes me look good, it doesn't change the fact that the three of us being the same debaters would be rather impossible.

Anyone out there have some amazing reasons to prove your claim?
FalseReality

Pro

So I have to argue that you three are them same person. I don't think you are personally, but I'll still do my best. I am judging my views on these three by their accounts as of 2/25/08. Any changes from here on only prove that there is tampering, most likely by the same person.

The number one reason that I can prove you are the same person is that you cannot prove otherwise. Some things I anticipate you might bring up to prove your individuality are your
names
ages
emails
locations
and in some cases ethinicity.

names: we can all agree that they are different inividual accounts. Its who is behind them that is of main concern. More on this later.
ages: Logical Master and Yraelz are 18, while Kleptin is 118. So there is an age inconsistancy? This proves nothing, because it can be a fabrication. All one has to do is edit their profile and they could be whatever age they want. For instance, as I write this my current age is 19. However, in round 2 I will be 36, round 3 I will be 9, and round 4 I will be back to 19. The age portion can be easily tampered with, meaning that is not a factor. 1 person can easily change 3 accounts ages with access.
emails: You must have different email addresses to have seperate accounts. But that is also null, since 1 person can easily create several email accounts. They don't even have to use them, but they can make them. Yahoo and hotmail are easy methods to do this. There are only a few questions that can be lied about and there you have it. Then you make this account using that adress and you have a new debater. John Doe (example) could easily make the accounts of Kleptin, Logical Master, and Yraelz using this method, and no one would be the wiser.
Locations: Yraelz lives in Montana, Kleptin in Hong Kong(even though I recall seeing him say he lives in a cabin off of Niagra Falls), and Logical Master in Knoxville, Tennesse. Each several miles apart. But this can also be manipulated to make it look like they could never meet. For instance, today I live in Colorado, Round 2 I will be living in Oregon, round 3 in Jersey, and Round 4 back in Colorado. Another thing that can be tampered with by one guy sitting at home at his computer. So also not a factor.
Ethnicity- again, this is tamperable. Logical Master is Black, like me, Kleptin and Yraelz are ?. But that is something one guy with several accounts can easily change. Round 2 I will be Latino, Round 3 a pacific Islander, and round 4 back in black. So this too cannot be a factor.

SO those are the more straight forward responces to defend you individuality that I have just proven and will continue to prove are not able to be factors in your defence.

Now lets look at your similarities. You all
Have a large amount of debates having been/being fought
You all have a positive win ratio
Similar debating styles
All seem to be present in each others debates
All seem to be present when discussing other peoples debates.

# of debates: Logical Master: 37. Yraelz: 34. Kleptin: 53 as of 2/25/08. The purpose pf having so many accounts can be for several reasons based on this information alone. John Doe loves debating. If these were all under one account he would be involved in 124 debates (not subtracting the ones they've done amoungst themselves). Thats alot of debates to handel. So he creates different several accounts (opening up the possibility that there could be more) to manage them all. Because just gets such a rush from this that if he's having a slow day he will debate himself. What better oppenent that ones own mind? These are just a few justifications one might have towards giving themselves multiple accounts.

Win Ratio: With so many debates its more than possible that one would have lost more than they won. Well, negative numbers are not pleasant. People like to win. 1 extra account could break a tie, but two extra could win a debate. Thats three free votes. That could have changed the outcome of Texas' statehood. With his other accounts he would have the knowledge that either way, he wins, so not as big of a deal. But when against other opponents, having three votes can make all the difference.

Style: You all share the technique of copying and pasting you opponents points and addressing that subject specifically. Also, you all have an uncanny ability to attack minor issues making them seems large. And a well verse knowledge of fallacies. Everyone is entitled to have their own style, but these similarities seem to raise some suspision.

Present within: I've noticed after reading alot of your stuff that you'll all have conversations with each other on each others debates. Usually congratulating each other and adding extra topics. Rarely have I seen a major disagreement. Two people congratulating you would make John Doe feel good, even if it was himself.

Present without: You also all seem to converge at one point or another on the same outside debates. Same as above applies.

These are all staggering coincidences, with limited differences. So much so it might cause one to wonder if they are connected? Any differences might be purposeful to throw people off from suspision. All just a clever ruse orchestrated by and even cleverer puppet master.

So my main point is that there is nothing you can say within this site to prove you are not one in the same person. It can all be tampered with by simple logging off and on's. SO from my percepective, there is only 1 way that this can be settled and that is with physical, real world proof. Thus, my proposition is that the only way you can all three prove your individuality is with your profile pictures. There would have to be physical evidence showing you are three seperate people in seperate locations. These pictures also must be left up for 1 week after this debate is finished. Here are the requirements for the pictures:
1) The user must stand infront of a real, state planted sign that says what the town is. This means Logical Master has to stand infront of a sign that might say "Welcome to Knoxville, Tennesse", Kleptin would have to have a Hong Kong sign behind him, and Yraelz would need one from a city in Montana.
2) Each person has to be present in the photo. This would eliminate the possibility that the picture was stolen from google or some other website that has city signs. Meaning we should see two 18 year olds and one 118 year old man, you know who you are.
3) Each must hold up their own hand made sign saying "I am Kleptin" for Kleptin, "I am Yraelz" for Yraelz, and "I am Logical Master" for Logical Master.
So summerized:
Yraelz: sign for a city in Montana, 18, sign that says "I am Yraelz"
Logical Master: sign for Knoxville, Tennese, 18, sign that says "I am Logical Master"
Kleptin: sign somewhere signifying it is Hong Kong, 118 year old man, and a sign that says "I am Kleptin".

Without this physical proof, there is no way that you can disprove that you are all not the same person. Personal accounts are void since those could be well fabricated lies. I've already disproved your account info's. Giving your individual emails does nothing either. Basically, any proof you give through cyberspace alone cannot be considered. You must give physical evidence that all three of you are seperate people that both I and the audience can see. Without this proof you have absolutly no proof. Any rhtoric you give is mere banter, and any discussion about the impossibilities of taking such pictures is a distraction from the soon to be proved fact that you are one person and cannot provide the proper evidence.

Your rebuttal?
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Con

Alright let me begin my speech then. For starters I would like to point out that my opponent is wrong, there is absolutely no way that either of us can 100% prove that Kleptin, Logical-Master, and Yraelz are the same or different people. My opponent claims that this can be done by uploading 3 pictures but this is simply untrue as photo shop is readily available to me and would make this job easy in about 20 minutes. Thus instead of sticking my opponent with a burden of proof that he cannot prove I will simply be offering my voters better reasons than my opponent for why we probably cannot be the same people.

1. My opponent points out that we have all done our fair share of debates. This is true, I believe we have done 37, 38, and 56 at this point. Thus I am now going to go and copy every argument we have ever made and paste it into a word document............. and I'm back 1 hour 32 minutes later, slightly sleepier than when I left. Between myself, Kleptin, and Logical-Master we have typed 181,780 words, being 1,036,898 characters, and amounting to 365 pages of word document. Thus my first point is this, Wiki tells me the average speed of a computer user in words per minute for composition is 19, hence for it to be one person doing this it would take approximately 9567 minutes or 160 hours. However considering the fact that the typing speed was compiled presupposing that every word equals 5 characters we must evaluate this off the characters. Meaning 1,036,898 characters corresponds to 207,380 words. That many words corresponds to 10,915 minutes, or 181 hours. Which is roughly 7 and half days of straight typing. Which means considering logical-master joined Jan. 7 that out of the last 50 days we have spent 7 and a half straight days typing. This doesn't include the time it took us to brainstorm arguments, nor does this include the time it took us to eat, sleep, vote on other debates, or comment on other debates. So while it is plausible that we could have possibly spent 181 hours doing this, it is rather doubtful.

2. We have a combined 131 debates. There is no other one debater on this site to my knowledge with that many debates. The chances of us having that many as one person are unlikely.

3. My opponent goes into some minor detail on the idea that we could vote on each others debates thus bringing our win ratio up. I can easily debunk this idea. If I had more than one account, and I was using them to up my win ratio then I wouldn't bother with just two accounts. The consequence of having two account or 30 accounts are the same. If I am found out then I would be kicked off the cite. Thus I would make as many accounts as I could in order to assure that I win every debate. Obviously this is not the case as:

Yraelz: 67.65% (and falling)
Logical-Master: 62.86%
Kleptin: 72.00%

We have each lost quite a number of debates. If I was going to have multiple accounts to ensure victory I would be doing it well.

4. The only hard piece of evidence, besides evidence:1 we have at this point comes from the comment section of the debate titled, "Time is just a concept" http://www.debate.org...
In which the debater known as sweatycrease makes this accusation:

"HEY BRITTWALLER, YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT KLEPTIN AND LOGICAL MASTER ARE THE SAME PERSON, SO YOU HAVE LESS OF A CHANCE TO WIN THIS DEBATE WHEN HE VOTES SEVERAL TIMES FOR HIMSELF."

The webmaster replies later with,

"Hi Debaters,

Please disregard any statements made by Sweatycreases regarding the account status of anyone on Debate.org. The comments regarding these matters are untrue and against the terms of service. I can assure you that this problem is being dealt with.

Thank You,

Webmaster"

As the webmaster has every ability to check IP addresses he/she should be seen as the leading authority on deciding if we are the same people.

5. My opponent suggests I would open three different accounts so that I could debate myself and have an organized space to do debates. This is untrue as 3 different accounts would only be less organized and would require I log out to change between debates. As far as wanting to debate myself goes I would like to ask my voters to have 30 minutes conversation with themselves at this point and then ask themselves how much fun it was afterwards. Debating yourself, especially in multiple hours sessions would not be fun.

6. Finally my opponent suggests that because we all use a similar style of debate we probably are all the same person. This is untrue, and a fallacy known as ignoring the common cause. The fact that we all use similar strategies comes from the fact that we have all debated before. The fact that we all use similar strategies in now way shows us to be the same person. This would be like saying, "many pro wrestlers use similar strategies thus they must the same person."

Your move.
FalseReality

Pro

So, you admit that you lose? I gave you the only reason that you can prove your singularity but you denied it? And how does photoshop come into play anyway? If Kleptin and Logical master are individuals they may not have photoshop. It would be their job to post their own pictures. If you did make 3 pictures and post them it would only prove that you are all three one person. You might think I mean putting links of the pictures here in your next round. I mean their own profiles. Things only they could access. I don't think it unreasonable. You just have to take a picture of you body. We don't need your real name, your social, or anything like that. Just your body, next to physical proof that you are were you say you are, and recognition that you are your screen name so that we know it wasn't a picture taken from Google or something. Beside, you could not fabricate a perfect picture. A color outside photograph is extremely complicated. There are shadows, lightings, dimensions, etc. And you'd also have to have the person holding a hand made sign that says "I am Yraelz". Thats not on google. I too have photoshop, and know this to be true. I made these specifications in mind of photoshop. And your refusal only adds suspision. So, either you all give actual proof proving you are actaul seperate people and gain an easy win, or continue trying to beat me with rhetoric, not disproving my claim with actaul evidence, only giving more reason to believe you are all 1 person, and letting me win. Y'alls choice.

now to your specific points, even though they are not necessary to disprove in order for me to win...

1) 50 x 24 = 1200. so You've been up for approximatly 1200 hours. Out of that you've spent 180 hours (7.5 days) on his site. That means you'd spend roughly 6 hours a day on this site. I don't find it to be unreasonable to think this could be a true fact, assuming what I presumed about John Doe is correct. He likes debating, has no life outside his home, and wants to feel special/recognized. He's pretty darn smart, so he has it figured out. Make three different account, make them pretty different, and with his brilliant mind behind them he gains famousity for his many debates, almost all wins. His fearless way of picking any debate and thrashing his opponent up with words. Even though he sees only avatars, many praise his names. Even though they are seperate, it still means they are all saying 'he's the man'. Its not at all unplausible, in fact, theres a high chance what I'm saying is true unless disproven. Which as I've stated before, the only way to do so is with the picture following all my guidelines. Otherwise, I think I hit it right on the money, so to speak.

2) Again, my above reasoning shows otherwise. Its actually very possible this could be true, it all depends on the person.

3) 3 accounts isn't enough to win ALL debates, only the close ones. Otherwise its just a few helping points, never the less. I have no doubt that there could be more, especilly if my above hypothesis is true. I began to suspect maybe Solo and Beem0r could be yours too. I would actually have pegged Kleptin, Logical Master and Beem0r of being the same person because of all the Pheonix Wright pics. But we're not talking about them right now. I would expect 5 accounts out of such a person, but not 30. Thats a little rediculous, even for this lonely man. Besides, three reknown accounts is all you'd need to manipulate the public if your good. John Doe would also not have that much of a desire to win EVERY debate, just enough so his win ration is substancialy larger than his lose. The case I believe you will find all three acount share.

4) I though this point might come up when I read Brittwhalers comment. SO I prepared myself. I've taken the liberty of creating my own false account. I won't say who it is, what the picture is, or even what sex,just know its out there. Don't worry, as soon as I post my final reply I will use that account to vote for you Yraelz. Anyway, if debate.orgs watchers are so good at finding false accounts they should be able to find this one. Each of us has close to 3 days to post a reply, (which I take full advantage of [your comment]) meaning this debate could last up to 12 days (four rounds x three days). This should be substantial time for the watchers to find the account and delete it. However, if they haven't by the time this debate is done, then I win this major point. It proves that accounts can slip past them, and thus three (or more) should be no problem. How will you know it lived? A) if it didn't I promise I will freely admit it B) If it survived, then as soon as I log off of this account and onto its when the debate is over, it will post a comment reading:

"Ha ha, guess I win Mr. YraelzKelptinLogicalMaster. Tikki Tikki tembo-no sa rembo-chari bari ruchi- pip peri pembo"
Along with a link to a web page where the first three words of the fifth paragraph of the first contents are: "Begorrah ! Before you"

I'm sure no one else knows of this page, so that means it will not be an imposter. Again, if it lives then it means your point isw wrong Kleptin. It means 1 person can sucessfully open two accounts and get away with it, making it perfectlt plausible that John Doe could have done the same. If you lose this point you lose the debate. Unless you prove your individuality with the pictures, which I probably can't do seeing as how you are 1 person.

Well good luck with that.
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Con

Alright here we go.

My opponent begins this round by stating that I lose because I will not post pictures of all three debaters. He goes on to advocate that those debaters must post their own pictures in their profile. This is an unfair burden of proof on my part as it means that he is no longer debating me but me, Kleptin and Logical-master. In other words my opponent assumes we are all the same person. Sadly as we are not all the same person I cannot actually gaurantee that either of them will post their pictures in their profile pictures, however I actually did manage to get them to take the pictures. Thus I will post them all now and if they do see fit at some point they can post them in their profile picture if they desire. Failure to do so should not be counted against me. http://www.freewebs.com...

Next onto the points.

1. My opponent advocates in this one that I would only have to spend 6 hours a day online. This is not true and can actually be disproven by this debate itself. My opponent does not take into account the time required to actually formulate arguments, or the research done in order to develop arguments. For this debate alone it took me 2 hours to actually copy and paste every argument the three of us had ever made so I could word count it. It also took me a considerable amount of time to get my hands on those pictures. Then some more time to make a freewebs account dedicated to those pictures. And then a bit more time learning the freewebs interface. All in all this debate itself has so far almost taken me an entire day. My opponent also leaves out the fact that I need sleep, that I eat, use the bathroom, and read books to stay educated on the subjects which I debate.

2. My second point was grouped with my first point and attacked under it. My second point simply stated that we have a combined 131 debates (now 140) and that if I was one person I would be the only person on this site to have such. This would make me quite a bit different than your average john doe. I simply advocate that this is unlikely.

3. My third point in this round still stand as my opponent does nothing to contradict it. My point was that if I was going to make multiple accounts I would make enough to assure that I win every debate. Seeing as being caught with one account as the same consequence of being caught with 10. My opponent advocates this is ridiculous as I would not be able to use so many accounts but I was not advocating I use them all. If my opponents suspicion was true and I actually made multiple accounts to feel like I was the man, John Doe specifically, I could use three to debate and 10 to vote on those debates. This would assure that I felt like the man! THE MAN!

3.5. It should be noted I already am THE MAN! My avatar picture beats out everyone else's easily! Especially the Full metal Alchemist one that I am being forced to discontinue use of until my debate with logical-master concludes.

4. My opponent argues that multiple accounts can slip past the administrators. This is very true. I was not in anyway attempting to disprove this point, I was merely stating that this point decreases the likelihood of the three of us being the same person. I must also push the point that people have reported us as being the same people before which draws more attention than the account my opponent has made.

My 5th and 6th points were dropped. Here they are again,

"5. My opponent suggests I would open three different accounts so that I could debate myself and have an organized space to do debates. This is untrue as 3 different accounts would only be less organized and would require I log out to change between debates. As far as wanting to debate myself goes I would like to ask my voters to have 30 minutes conversation with themselves at this point and then ask themselves how much fun it was afterwards. Debating yourself, especially in multiple hours sessions would not be fun.

6. Finally my opponent suggests that because we all use a similar style of debate we probably are all the same person. This is untrue, and a fallacy known as ignoring the common cause. The fact that we all use similar strategies comes from the fact that we have all debated before. The fact that we all use similar strategies in now way shows us to be the same person. This would be like saying, "many pro wrestlers use similar strategies thus they must the same person.""

Finally I re-advocate my first point from last round. I stated that neither of us can 100% prove this point, it is nearly impossible. Such a 100% proof would first take proof that the world even exists as we see it. As this has not yet been done it is simply our job in this debate to persuade the voters one way or another. I have offered multiple points as to decrease the likelihood that we are the same person to nearly nothing. My opponent on the other hand has managed to do nothing and spent his time attempting to demean my own points instead of making his own. Thus at this point I can only see a vote for Con.

Good luck. =)
FalseReality

Pro

It doesn't matter whether or not you believe it's unfair for all three to post their own pictures or not, the burden of proof is on all three of you, seeing as how you brought them nto this, even though all three of them are you. I have proven what you staed in round one, being that it is quite possible that all three accounts could belong to one person.If you have paid attention, I've easily changed all of my account information just as I said I would. In round 2 I was a 36 year old latino living in Oregon, right now I'm a nine year old Pacific Islander in New Jersey, and in round four I'll be right back to my proper age and actual location. SO its quite possible to lie on that front. The fake account I set up is still alive and kicking, so it looks like I'll be able to prove that debate.org's watchers are not infallible. So its very possible you are all the same possible. You can only prove that you are all regular people with real pictures of yourself infront of signs indicating that you actaully live were your account says you do, and actually hold an hand made sign that says you are who you are. So far you've failed to do this.

Yes, I maintain that you have not met this requirement. Its quite obvious that these pictures in the links are fake, possibly made with Microsoft Paint by the looks of the quality. There are several ways to figure this out. First off, the people all have a very apparent crop line around them. Second, this lighting does not match up. Third and what could have been first, is the paper trail, or should I say google trail, of the picture you used for the fabrications. Here are some of the pictures in their origonal stae which includes all three locations and "Kleptins" person. I'm sure I could have found the other two fake persons within 4 pages with the right keywords, but "Kleptins" pic will suffice to show that the other two people have 99.9% probably of being fake. I found Yraelz open road at a Columbian Church website.
http://i262.photobucket.com...
http://i262.photobucket.com...
http://i262.photobucket.com...
http://i262.photobucket.com...

So you have still failed to give evidence that any of you are actual people. Infact, the fact that all three of you have posted these pictures only make me believe further that you could all be one in the same. Not able to provide three real people in real pictures you posted fakes, in the hopes that I wouldn't notice the forgeries (for the readers convenience, Logical Master, Kleptin and Yrealz have posted Yraelz fake photos from his link). Cute. So you have still failed to provide the physical evidence to prove your innocence. And as I showed, any 'text proof' you give should all be taken in as a lie because it can easily be a fabrication. You have 1 more round, so roughly 3 days, for all three to have posted a real picture following my guidelines. Otherwise you lose. Have fun trying to do the impossible.

Now to your points

1) As you said as Kleptin, someone can easily spread 6 hours throughout the day, or can be put into a solid block, all depending on the person's lifestyle. Thinking of rebutals can be done anytime during the day, I sometimes do it at work. You can do the eatting sleeping and reading anytime during the other 18 hours. Like I said before, John Doe shows many traits of being an oddball, so anything is possible with him.

2) Like I said, John Doe's a freak of nature, anything is possible with him if what I say is true. 140 debates could be a fraction of what he is trully capable of.

3) With John Doe's low self esteem, he would keep a minimum number of accounts that he needed to manipulate the public. Winning every round would make you have a high win rate, but thats not nearly as satisfying if you know thats only you saying that. No, he'd rather have other people praise him. He'd only use enough to make them do so. 3 to 4 would be about right.

3.5) You are not the man, seeing as how its still questionable as to whether you are actually a man or not.

4) The amount of time you spent talking about the watchers, it was a big issue in your argument. But I'm confident at theend of this I'll have proven my theory 100% true. If it is, then there is an extremely high chance that you could get away with three accounts.

5) Like I said in #3, he'd use it to alter the crowds opinion. It doesn't matter if it's fun or not, its only a tactic. Most people would hardly say debating is fun, but here we are. So its not impossible to also think John Doe would like the sound of his own voice, or atleast the look of his own typing.

6) I would not have brought this up if I thought it was just experience. However, the styles are so remarkably similar that they make one wonder. So this point is not a main suspision of mine, only an observation of some very unsound coincidences.

So, again, I can prove that you are all the same person by you neglecting to do so. If your all different there should be no problem and especially no fear of showing it for two weeks. So take the pictures. What would be the real harm? Your real names and addresses are annonymous, we just need proof of your bodies and general location. I've made several of my own points. Infact all of the subjects are basically my points seeing as how your opening statment was two sentences. You've failed to prove your oint, seeing as how you've provided no real proof only easily debunkable rhetoric. I have proved that you, John Doe, could easily have three accounts (your premise) and GIVEN you the way to win, but you seem to want to lose. Therefore, I'll ask the voter to indulge you and vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
Yraelz

Con

Looks like this round is going to have to be good. Lets see what I can do.

.....

I think I will begin with the pictures.

Yep they are forgeries nice job, you got it right. And yes the lighting is off in at least two of them. However lets examine the pictures in the order in which I made each of them.

1. I started with my own picture as finding a spot that looked like Montana proved the least difficult. Photo shopped a sign in that originally said "Welcome to Denver" and then overwrote it with Montana. At which point I found a protester and destroyed his sign making it read what I wanted. I then photo shoped him in. As it was my first picture it looked rather bad. (Crop lines around sleeves bad!)

2. Would be Logical-Master. Finding a black college protester was nearly impossible much less one actually looking at the Camera. Thus I had to go with someone who wasn't looking at the camera at all. However the photoshop job here was significantly better. The only crop lines clearly visible are those right around the sign. The lighting however is a little off which made me sad.

3. Finally I did Kleptin's picture. This picture was my third and took about 2 hours to do. (Yeah photoshop takes forever) Obviously I needed an old man as Kleptin is supposed to be 118 and somewhere in Hong Kong. The picture of Hong Kong was almost completely dark in its original but I finally figured out how to adjust the light settings so they were congruent with Kleptin's character. I once again messed up the crop job a tad. There is a noticable discoloration near his right elbow and a small blur over his left shoulder. All in all though I was rather proud of the picture as it looked almost real.

So I realize now that everyone reading this is like, "Wtf Yraelz......". Thus I present my points in a logical order.

1. This isn't my burden of proof, the only reason I ended up taking the 6 hours to go out of my way and do the photoshop job was because I was completely and utterly bored with my day. My case in this round is that we are not all the same people, I can choose to prove said case however I desire and have offered my own proof for this. My opponent on the other hand has ways in which he wants to prove it and thus he has the burden of proof on those ways. The idea that we should all stand in front of signs is a suggestion from himself and therefor is his burden of proof. -IMPORTANT- I have just as much ability to make those two stand in front of signs of wherever they are from as my opponent does! My opponent attempts to claim this is my burden of proof but it simply is not. I have burden of proof on my 6 points, I do not have a burden of proof to proves the pro's own point for him.

2. Even if for some reason my voters feel that this should be my burden of proof I can at the very least convince you that it is no greater a form of proof than any other of the scenario's my opponent debunked. For one, the fact that Kleptin says he is 118 years old is nearly impossible, therefor requiring me to prove that Kleptin is 118 years old is impossible because he is not. -IMPORTANT- Secondly even if the statements in each of our profiles were 100% factual picture evidence would not prove this case! Look specifically to what I managed to do given 6 hours with photoshop. What if I had taken 18 hours instead? Spaced it out over 3 days. Given the time and motivation I, a complete newb at photoshop, could make convincing pictures with a little practice.

3. Next, yet another point why this evidence is no greater. I can take almost any picture and point out something that looks photoshopped in it to prove that it is not reliable. In fact, lets examine the pictures my opponent has handed us.

a. http://i262.photobucket.com...

Wow... Lets look at this guy in relation to his background. Looks like he was photo shopped into a completely blurry picture. Not to mention that he is totally off color with the rest of the picture. The photo in his hand could be photoshopped from anywhere.

b.http://i262.photobucket.com...

Look where the sign enters the ground on the left hand side. Could definitely be a photo shop happening there.

c. http://i262.photobucket.com...

The entire ground looks fake. Not to mention the road has an obvious crop line going all the way down it on the left side. Yuck!

d.http://i262.photobucket.com...

This one is actually really funny. I think it might actually be photoshopped. First off we have a strange white rectangle the woman. The sign has multiple rectangles on it that look strange. It also has a sign to the right hand side of it that looks like it was blatantly photoshopped in (notice crop lines on the right hand side.) The woman herself has a mysterious glow on her upper left shoulder and part of her right arm looks like it might be missing. Though that could just be a shadow. The sign looks like it gives off its own florescent glow.

Thus my point: Any picture can look photoshopped. A picture does not qualify has evidence in this round.

4. Notice the line where my opponent states, "for the readers convenience, Logical Master, Kleptin and Yrealz have posted Yraelz fake photos from his link" This is where I can actually prove we are not the same people. Had we been the same people I could have very easily just posted the pictures directly into each of our profile pics. Instead I had to post it somewhere else so that people could see, as I do not have access to their accounts. In turn they took the profile pictures and posted them into their own pictures, this is the worst possible thing they could have done. Had I had control over them this would have never happened, because I could have used the fact that they refused to post my phony pictures in order to bolster my point that I have 0 control over them.

Thus I will begin my summary. In this round there is nothing that stands as 100% proof. There is no way that I can 100% prove my side of the resolution as there is no way that my opponent can 100% prove his side of the resolution. Instead we must convince the voters of the more realistic or likely scenario. Here are my six counterpoints.

1. My opponent states,

"Like I said before, John Doe shows many traits of being an oddball, so anything is possible with him."

This is where he loses this point, as he concedes that the idea of John Doe's existence is unlikely by him being an oddball.

2. "Like I said, John Doe's a freak of nature" Once again concedes the point.

3. The idea of John Doe being liked and John Doe having a high win rate are not mutually exclusive. Both can happen at the same time and would hypothetically make John Doe even happier. Thus I would have many many accounts and perfect records.

4. Maybe I could. Why would I bother putting myself in risky situations like creating those debate though if I was trying to get away with it? Doo dee doo...

5. My opponent once again gives the freak of nature argument. He actually says in this point, "So its not impossible" which is true, but it is highly unlikely.

6. My opponent simply states that he was simply observing on this point. I can't argue with that. My point stands that we are all good debates thus we use good debating styles.

Finally my opponent finishes his speech with the statement,

"So, again, I can prove that you are all the same person by you neglecting to do so."

Thus I would once again like to point out that there is no definite proof for this case and secondly that a lack of proof is not proof in itself. Attempting to prove something by citing a lack of proof does nothing.

Thanks.
FalseReality

Pro

FalseReality forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
58 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
If you add up the number of debates of both people, it equals 227 debates. That would be alot of debates.
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
..................I'm gonna have to go PRO.
Posted by sweatycreases2 8 years ago
sweatycreases2
PRO WINS!!! UNLIMITED POWER!!!
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Lolol, that was quite a debate. Was amazing.
Posted by Harvey_Birdman 8 years ago
Harvey_Birdman
Ha ha, guess I win Mr. YraelzKelptinLogicalMaster. Tikki Tikki tembo-no sa rembo-chari bari ruchi- pip peri pembo

http://uncyclopedia.org...
Posted by FalseReality 8 years ago
FalseReality
(Part 3)
...An unsettling coincidence.

In conclusion, Yraelz has failed to prove anything that would help himself, while I have proven everything I needed to to show that I am right. I gave him a chance to win and he denied it. He flip flopped. He gave false evidence (twice) then tried to pass it off as a joke when it was discovered. He lied to you. He seems to want to lose this debate, so I urge you all to respect his wishes and vote Pro.
Posted by FalseReality 8 years ago
FalseReality
(Part 2)

So now to address his points:

1) It is your burden of proof. Your stance is to prove its impossible for all three of you to be 1 person, and the only way you could prove that is with physical evidence, which you failed to provide. I simply GAVE YOU the way to do that, but you refused. Even if what you claim is true and you cannot influence the Kleptin and LM, you atleast could have done it, which would have been better than nothing. However you tried to pass a lie as real, which only shows me that you could try to do it with accounts as easily as you tried to with photoshopped pics.

2)If Kleptinis real then he could be 118 years old. Another possibility you think is impossible. Even if you had spent two years on 1 picture there is no way you could have made it perfect. By cropping pictures there are always the origonals to be found. And no crop is ever perfect. Even the Kleptin one your so proud of is majorly flawed (you can see the girls arm behind the man). So this 'point' of yours is null.

3)this is a very feeble argument. There are so many things a real picture holds that photoshop cannot even begin to touch properly. If the picture I gave have any tampering, its only on to imrove the quality of the picture, not the picture itself. Again, no amount of cropping or paining can create pictures of that calibur. AGAIN, my requirments were made with photoshop in mind. I have it too, and knew what it can do and what it can't. Again, especially the part about hand made signs.

3 or 4) Also, I never conceded anything about John Doe. If anything, you have only helped with my theory by not doing anything to prove otherwise. As a tactic to throw people off obviously. You knew you could get away with it, so why not go ahead with it? Deedle deedle dee.

5) Improbable is not unlikely, besides, this contradicts your previous proposition. Looks like someone flip flopped.

6)Even though its true, this wasn't a main point of mine, its still an
Posted by FalseReality 8 years ago
FalseReality
I got to my computer with 20 minutes left and it wouldn't let me post my rubuttal, so here it is.
(Part 1)
Kleptin, LM, and Yraelz are all the same person. This is proven because They did not give any viable evidence to the contrary, being my picture requirement. It was made with photoshop in mind, especially the part about hand made signs. Yraelz attempt at posting fake ones and continuous refusal to post real ones only shows me that he couldn't do it because he is all one person. Even if he alone had done it it would be better for his case than not doing it at all, which is what he did. I've proven that he could easily have three (or more) accounts because of two main factors
A)All the info can be easily changed and tamoered with. I have sucessfully done so in all four rounds.
B)Accounts can easily slip past debae.coms admin. My fake accoutn is Harvey_Birdman, the email is meekobabe at hotmail.com, and the password is buster. I'll delete it in two days, unless the admin does first because they will now know its a fake.

SO I win on these two accounts, the only ones that could have won the debate for my opponent besides the physical proof.

His main argument is that He, Kleptin, and LM cannot be one person because its IMPOSSIBLE. I have shown its quite possible depending on who exactly John Doe is. He can easily be a lonely person, with low self esteem, bundles of time on his hands, and a very smart brain. My opponent then CHANGES HIS STANCE by saying he can't be all the same person because its IMPROBABLE. Sounds like a fear tactic to me. However, I've shown improbable isn't impossible, and that anything can be as improbable as it wants, but still very possible. The only way to show otherwise is physical proof that it is impossible for them to be one person because they are three (via the pictures) something he continuously denies having the ability to do, and even when he feebily did try it was shown to be a lie, as he later admited.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Yeah huh. If Kleptin was smart he would make all his accounts with different win ratios as not to draw suspicion to his many trolls.
Posted by FalseReality 8 years ago
FalseReality
I can debunk the Kleptin/FalseReality think right now: the fact that I've sucked so far (0 wins) and Kleptin has rocked (39 wins) should suffice.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
YraelzFalseRealityTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 7 years ago
Yraelz
YraelzFalseRealityTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
YraelzFalseRealityTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
YraelzFalseRealityTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
YraelzFalseRealityTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
YraelzFalseRealityTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by keenan 8 years ago
keenan
YraelzFalseRealityTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Gilgamesh 8 years ago
Gilgamesh
YraelzFalseRealityTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
YraelzFalseRealityTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by wooferalot101 8 years ago
wooferalot101
YraelzFalseRealityTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30