The Instigator
SuperRobotWars
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

RazaMobizo And RazaTheHacker Were The Same Person

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 9/9/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,389 times Debate No: 13104
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

SuperRobotWars

Pro

My argument is that RazaMobizo and RazaTheHacker were in fact the same person
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Marauder

Con

I contend they are not necessarily the same person.

Pro has burden of proof for his positive claim

and in the rounds to come while he attempts to provide that I will attempt to convince you all that in fact RazaMobizo is my opponent; and RazaTheHacker is his cousin. and the cool thing is I do not have to prove this claim to argue the Con position.
Debate Round No. 1
SuperRobotWars

Pro

My argument is that RazaMobizo and RazaTheHacker were in fact the same person
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
due to the fact the webmaster said so
Marauder

Con

your sourcing there various debates proves nothing. except that maybe bad debaters find they enjoy arguing with others on their same skill level.

The webmaster commented nowhere on any of those sources and I really don't think you would try making us believe that he contacted you personally on the matter.

The only evidence we have as to his thoughts is that both the accounts are in fact closed http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...
Being closed is not sufficient evidence that they were in fact multi-accouters at all, much less being the same multi-accouter.
I could very well be that they were closed for spam, trolling, crude language, harassment, threats, fraud, ect.... all reasons people get reported and there accounts closed.
Even grated its for multi-accounting; they could have been two separate multi-accouters.

In fact there is reason enough to suspect that is the case; in the comment section of the following debate in this link http://www.debate.org... my opponent allegedly claimed that the person behind both accounts was his cousin.

But this is all likely a ruse, offering something partially true so that its easier to believe. when in fact it has always been superrobotwars and his cousin as the Razamobzo and RazatheHacker. SuperRobotWars as mobizo and his cousin as theHacker. With this collaborated effort they could appear to be online at the same time.
Why would my opponent create 2 suspicious accounts? So that after they are caught and reported he can make THIS DEBATE as a possible easy win. SuperRobotWars has an incredibly low percentile and likely will do anything to raise it.

Now can I prove that paranoid claim? of course not; and the point I wish to get across is that likewise neither can my opponent prove his.
But in for this debates resolution, my alternate proposal makes the resolution not affirmed and thus you should vote Con this debate!

quick summery:

1) Pro's claim that webmaster said so is not sourced
2) all we know is the webmaster closed both accounts, and this could be for any reason.
3) Pro has a very low percentile and we would expect him to wish to raise it with some wins somehow.
4) awfully convenient that after these two suspicious accounts are on scene and disappear SuperRobotWars has a debate about it.....with a cousin that conveniently has inside information on the matter.....
5) any claim I make using 3) and 4) are equally as provable as Pro's assertion.
6) because of 1) and 2) Pro has not affirmed the resolution
7) because of 5) the resolution is not affirmed.
and last....
8) because of 6) and 7) you should VOTE CON!

that is all.
Debate Round No. 2
SuperRobotWars

Pro

Ah but if it were trolling, crude, language etc . . . we would still see traces
Marauder

Con

There are still traces. the three debates you cited. they could be interpreted as the Raza-trolls spam. Because they actually finished those debates without forfeiting any rounds those debates filled up the DDO homepage section 'debates in the voting period. these debates are usually the only debates people bother reading or voting on; so filling up what room is for debates on that page with really poor quality debates can be considered spam.

At least half of this debate is going to a perfect example of that. The users who where hoping to read something interesting will leave from reading this debate feeling they have just wasted some of there time, and go on to skimming through the other debates on the home page.

By the way; I believe you meant to type "...trolling, crude language, etc..." but instead you put "...trolling, crude, language etc..." Crude is not a word that should go by itself like that.

Audience even if we are to allow that Pro's final round case gave enough reason to be sure that those accounts were not closed for any reason other than multi-accounting; it does not prove that these two multi-accouters are the same person.

So after considering that important thought; we can revise my last round summary. It has not changed much.

1) Pro's claim that webmaster said so is not sourced
2) all we know is the webmaster closed both accounts, and this could be for any reason; such as they are two separate cases of multi-accounting.
3) Pro has a very low percentile and we would expect him to wish to raise it with some wins somehow.
4) awfully convenient that after these two suspicious accounts are on scene and disappear SuperRobotWars has a debate about it.....with a cousin that conveniently has inside information on the matter.....
5) any claim I make using 3) and 4) are equally as provable as Pro's assertion.
6) because of 1) and 2) Pro has not affirmed the resolution
7) because of 5) the resolution is not affirmed.
and last....
8) because of 6) and 7) you should VOTE CON!

If you have read this debate and feel frustrated that it has wasted your time in someway; take a chill pill and relax. And I have the perfect way for you to learn to do that if you find it difficult. Watch the video and learn to talk turtle with Crush.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
Just so y'all know I plan on posting a weak argument.
Vote Con Not Pro.
Unless you are . . . Insane . . .
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
Then don't believe its not a matter of life and death its for fun (keyword being fun).
Posted by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
But you have to _PROVE_ that. Using evidence, and I don't believe you.
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
But the truth is that the person who owned those 2 accounts was my cousin too bad they were deleted.
Posted by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
You've given no substantiating evidence for your claim. You just said it was true, which it probably is, but saying it's true means nothing without supporting arguments and empirical evidence.
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
How do you know I don't know who that person is?
Posted by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
You need to actually post arguments in your opening round. What you put isn't an argument, it's an unsubstantiated assertion.
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
If I loose this debate than I really and truly am the worst debater in the world.
Vote Pro.
Posted by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
Well... aren't you a smart cookie
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
SuperRobotWarsMarauderTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: SuperRobotWars made a claim that he could not empirically prove (a point that Marauder hammered away at) and had poor use of sources and grammar (the 'crude' contention, in particular)...
Vote Placed by KelchUSMC 6 years ago
KelchUSMC
SuperRobotWarsMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
SuperRobotWarsMarauderTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
SuperRobotWarsMarauderTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
SuperRobotWarsMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:07 
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
SuperRobotWarsMarauderTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06