The Instigator
Pro (for)
184 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
49 Points

THE OFFICIAL IZBO TRIAL; Resolved: Izbo10 should be permanently banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+67
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 43 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 34,557 times Debate No: 19652
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (648)
Votes (43)




Full resolution: By way of undue harm to the site and the community as a whole, Izbo10 should be permanently banned from DDO.


There will be 5 Rounds.

R1: Opening statement
R2: Additional charges/rebuttals
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Cross Examination/Additional Rebuttals
R5: Closing Arguments

Izbo10 also stipulates by accepting that if he uses this debate as a forum for additional abuses and TOS violations that he will be instantly banned.

Welcome ladies and gentlemen of the jury. We all want a quick trial, so let's proceed immediately to the charges against izbo10.

1) He has sent harassing private messages to users.

Izbo10 shows open contempt towards a large number of DDO users and has initiated personal vendettas against many of them (both vote bombing those users and harassing them). Throughout this debate, I will not have enough character space to present ALL the evidence against Izbo10 (you could probably fill a book with his insults and TOS violations). Instead, I am forced to pick a few brief excerpts to exemplify izbo's patterns of behavior:

After Double_R voted against izbo10 on one of izbo's debates and explained to izbo in-depth why he lost, izbo sent Double_R the following harassing private message: "double r before fvcking voting on debates and whining that i am discussing rks argument you might have wanted to figure the fvck out that guess what the debate was about rk's argument. Fvcking moron."

When this trial process began, izbo sent innomen the following harassing message: "Why are you such a piece of sh!t? I want to defend myself in this joke of a trial . . . This is so unchristian of you bastard."

ReformedArsenal complains of izbo's harassment and verbal abuse. "[izbo] swears and calls me names a lot. I've reported him for hatespeech several times . . . some people have left because of it (Cliff.Stamp is one off the top of my head)." ReformedArsenal was also extremely upset to have seen izbo mock a DDO user with Autism for being "retarded."

Izbo consistently harasses members who either enrage him in the forums or vote against him in his debates. Harassment not only violates the TOS but is also illegal under both federal and state law.

2) Izbo10 has consistently engaged in vote-bombing.

Reviewing all 39 of izbo's votes, at least half of them are vote bombs. All of the following vote bombs gave all 7 points to one person with horribly derogatory RFD's:

Izbo10 vote bombed two times in a row against Renascor. [1] Izbo admitted in the comments section of the latter one that he didn't read the debate and was retaliating against Renascor for an RFD he didn't like. Izbo said, "renascor, I didnt read the debate which means I had a far greater understanding of what was going on when I voted here, then [sic] you did when you voted on my debate." Man-is-good, in his counter-vote bomb RFD, writes that this is "clear evidence that Izbo10, due to his personal grudge with Renascor, decided to vote bomb him....Sad, just sad." Izbo's vote bombing was the sole reason Renascor did not win both debates.

Izbo vote bombed Cerebral_Narcissist three times. [2] Here are some of his RFD's: "Reasons for voting decision: cerebral is a moron who doesn't understand objective. [sic];" "Reasons for voting decision: Cerebral vote bombs me, so I am just countering." Clearly, these votes are merely retaliatory voting behavior.

Izbo has also vote bombed against ReformedArsenal twice (due to a personal vendetta) and against contradiction (due to admitted dislike). Izbo admits to vote bombing SuperRobotWars because he didn't like the manner in which SRW voted on one of his debates: "Reasons for voting decision: I don't care what the stips [sic] of this debate are superretardboy you don't understand how to vote on debates I ll [sic] do the same to you ok?" [4]

Izbo vote bombed TheHistoryProfessor twice, leaving these two charming RFD's: "Reasons for voting decision: stupid christians are stupid" and "Reasons for voting decision: ignorant christians are ignorant, take your head out of your a$$ and throw the bible away." [3]

The problem in the above cases isn't JUST the vote bombing, which is ban-worthy by itself, but also the horrid RFD's that could convince a new user like TheHistoryProfessor to leave the site.

And izbo *has* successfully convinced at least one new member to leave the site (although probably countless others as well). Izbo harassed and vote bombed Ninja_Tru for an RFD that Ninja_Tru left on one of izbo's debates. Izbo wrote Ninja_Tru the following RFD: "Reasons for voting decision: I didn't really read the debate, but then again neither does ninja before he votes, so i think he should lose a debate based on my vote as he did to me." [5] Ninja_Tru left the site shortly after izbo's harassment started. He has not logged in for 5 months.

Izbo's harassment and vote bombing are threats not only to current members, but to new members as well. Growing the site is impossible while izbo's harassment and vote bombing continue unabated. Izbo may be the first and last interaction that many new users have.

As our wise president has stated, "the core value of this site is the integrity of honest debates." Izbo consistently violates that core value.

3) Izbo is verbally abusive in the comments sections of debates.

Izbo exhibits this behavior consistently. I'll just provide two brief examples:

Izbo: "You bring $hit to an intellectual discussion then expect me to respect you, go fucks yourself." [6]

"This is basic you fuckin moron. Why did I know you wouldn't have the guts to say that I am wrong on this when it is the same fuckin thing." [7]

4) Izbo has degraded the forums.

Izbo has made the Religion forum, which he frequents, an unbearable environment for many users. Rusty explains this issue far better than I could:

"From what I've noticed, [izbo has] been slowly tearing away at the quality of one of our most popular forum sections for months now. True to his reputation, his most recent thread begins with "Since people on this board are too fuckin stupid to grasp this..." and ends with a charming " stfu and learn." It's this nauseating blend of ‘intelligence' and (arguably unwarranted) arrogance that has even caused a few decent members to stop frequenting the religion forum, as made evident by responses I received a few weeks prior to this statement, when questioning members of the community about their stance on the issue. In an environment designed for intellectual discourse, Izbo brings nothing to the table aside from both personal and general attacks on a frequent basis."

Phantom says, "Probably in 100% of my interactions with Izbo he has insulted me with ad hominem attacks. He insults many of the members I hold in upmost respect. It's impossible to reason with him. He's extremely stubborn. He creates many forum threads just for the purpose of insulting people."

I flipped to a random page in the Religion forum to help exhibit izbo's behavior. This is the first page I came to:

He says to popculturepooka (who we all know is anything but), "You truly are a fuckin moron." [8]

A few posts later, izbo says, "wHY DON'T YOU FUCKTARDS ACTUALLY GO OUT AND FIND OUT WHAT AN ATHEIST IS PLEAS3!!!! please for fucks sake educate yourselves, its not that hard."

Given the above 4 charges of harassment, vote bombing, leaving hate-filled comments, and degrading the Religion forum, it is no wonder that a poll of 39 DDO users found that 23% said banning izbo would "significantly" increase their enjoyment of the site. If izbo bothers one out of every four members of this site *to such an extent*, his ban is clearly necessary.

I'll provide a few more charges against izbo in later rounds.

Sources: see comments section

Note: the profanities in the PM's were completely uncensored, but I had to alter them to be able to post them here.


"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity"- a incredibly wise man, could have been me.

My actions has been justified in the light of incredible ignorance and lack of respect of the truth on this site. Some examples of this include but are not limited too:

Justcallmetarzan not understanding a syllogism. He was told a syllogism must persist of a major and minor premise, yet his guy presents this:

All the parts of the table are wood(minor premise)
therefore the table is wooden.

What made this worse is he argued this was not a syllogism:

Anything from which all parts are made of wood is wooden (Major premise)
All the parts of the table are wood (minor premise)
Therefore the table is wooden (conclusion)

That is incredible stupidity, where are the 2 premises? Huh, he was just taught that it needs a major and minor premise and he forgot the major premise? Really, that is ignorance that needs to be called out.

His lack of understanding the difference between knowledge and belief. He continues to conflate these in spite of many attempts to educate him on the difference.

We have Retardedarsenal who attempts to pass himself as going to seminary, when in reality all of his debates completely ignore what is taught in every respected seminary across the country and instead he relies on tired apologetics.

The majority of this board does not even understand that a false dichotomy or a god of the gaps fallacy is a fallacy. This has shown up many times when I point out other supernatural alternatives to god and they are thrown out. I have even tried to explain in vein that if there is a dichotomy of many choices and no reason to believe any one of them that any single one is improbable. Yet have been met with unrelenting stupidity in not understanding that to reasonably believe something it must be probable. Yet I constantly get voted against on this very argument. If something only has a 10% chance of being true, it is not reasonable to believe it true, yet this board does not think that is a valid argument against belief in god.

We have Man is good who is so stupid he doesn't get basic simple concepts, as we speak he is probably asking: "whats a concept?" That is unrelenting stupidity at its worst.

Speaking of this the champion of stupidity on this channel is cerebral narcissist, he doesn't understand definitions like zombie, and fails to recognize his straw man of my arguments for objective morality. Perhaps the greatest irony and act of stupidity on his part is this. He is actually one of the prosecutors. Yet, he claims to be a moral nihilist. We shall show what a moral nihilist is here:

Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism or amoralism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be make-believe, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise not in accord with fact or reality.

So following the TOS on here is neither inherently right or wrong to him. Nor would there be any reason what so ever according to him for Innoman to maintain the terms of service. Those choices hold no more weight in a conversation then what flavor ice cream is better to him. This is just laying more incredible stupidity in my face. Faced with this much stupidity, I am morally obligated to lash out on here against the ignorance.

So, while our prosecution has no grounds what so ever to say there is any reason to follow the terms of service at all, I argue that my free speech is being violated and that my temporary banning, already proved that in that short time, the board saw a dramatic decrease in usage in the forum and in the religion forum. (sources both forums). So they argue I harm the site, but my very lack of presence has actually brought a lack of discussion to the forums. The first day or 2 of my temporary banning we did not see the drop because I was the topic of discussion.

In conclusion:

1. I have been forced through insurmountable stupidity to lash out as logic does not work

2. My freedom of speech is being violated

3. My opponents have no grounds based on cerebrals moral nihilism to say the TOS should be upheld

4. The site has seen a lack of output since my temporary banning.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting izbo, although I'm not sure you heeded the stipulation that you couldn't, in the course of this debate, violate the TOS, which states, "No personal attacks against other members."

In fact, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, all izbo does in round 1 is engage in personal attacks against specific members of DDO or the community as a whole. Unfortunately izbo's mockery does not even stop at the frontier of DDO, but extends to Facebook as well. According to thett3, izbo has "posted quotes from Man is Good, Justcallmetarzan, and reformed arsenal on his facebook page making fun of them." The fact that izbo's harassment does not stop at the doorstep of DDO is extremely troubling.

I'll offer a quick rebuttal to izbo's points, then commence with the remainder of the charges against him.

== Rebuttal ==

R1) Izbo claims: "JustCallMeTarzan does not understand a syllogism"

This argument is a red herring: completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. A syllogism, however, could accurately describe izbo's defense in round 1:

All DDO users are stupid.
Stupidity is the ultimate crime.
Crimes deserve commensurate retribution.
Conclusion: Any retribution against all DDO members is justified.

However, there are clear flaws with this line of argumentation. Not only are the people izbo insults far from stupid, but also izbo's perceiving someone as stupid does not justify his retaliatory harassment or vote bombing. DDO will cease to function if we are not accepting of divergent opinions.

R2) Izbo thinks people are "too dumb" to understand his arguments

It seems far more likely that "what we've got here is a failure to communicate." [1] I'm sure that some authors have advanced the same arguments as izbo but in a more compelling manner. The most likely reason that the individuals izbo mentions did not vote for izbo's arguments was because he advanced said arguments with bad grammar, incorrect spelling and syntax, and a complete lack of clarity of expression.

To prove izbo's lack of communication skills, I cite his own defense attorney, Danielle, in her petition to declare izbo mentally disabled and thus unfit to represent himself:

" Is Izbo Mentally Disabled?

IQ tests aside, I've proposed a variant in the way mental retardation is defined or described. Some psychotherapists (particularly existential psychotherapists) describe it as a mere inability to communicate effectively. Nobody's denied that izbo has shown a complete inability to communicate effectively."

If the above is the opinion of the very people who were supposed to be defending him, that does not bode well for izbo.

R3) Izbo argues, "Cerebral_Narcissist is a moral nihilist"

This is another red herring. Cerebral did not even help me one iota with the preparation of this case, so this entire attack on the morals of the "prosecution team" falls flat.

Regardless, I never argued that we should ban izbo because the TOS is somehow sacrosanct. I argued we should ban him for: harassment, vote bombing, posting hateful comments, degrading the Religion forum, and scaring away members (Cliff.Stamp, Ninja_Tru, and untold others). The site cannot function while the above behavior continues.

R4) Free speech is violated

Free speech applies only to "public spaces." I am not required to allow izbo to give a speech about how dumb C_N is at my daughter's wedding, for example. A wedding is a private affair and as the person paying for the wedding, I can restrict speech. In the same way, it is well within Juggle's right to restrict types of "speech" that degrade the quality of the site, which is their private property.

Additionally, hate speech and "fighting words" are not protected by the 1st Amendment. Many of izbo's insults would qualify as fighting words. Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred, that are substantially likely to provoke a violent response. Many members of DDO would be substantially likely to take a swing at izbo if he cussed at and insulted them in such a fashion in person. As such, his speech is not protected because it is considered, by our government, to be dangerous.

R5) Izbo claims his ban would lead to a lack of activity

Not all activity is good activity. 90% of the activity surrounding izbo is comprised of complaints about his behavior. Even if some people support izbo's cause, a site full of active izbo supporters, who routinely harass and vote bomb their opponents, would quickly become a site that none of us would want to frequent.

In addition, the Religion forum has seen a revival during this brief respite from insults that was izbo's temporary ban.

== Further Charges ==

Charge 5) Izbo is a moderator's worst nightmare.

Not surprisingly, izbo gets "reported" by other users frequently. According to a subpoena of innomen's records, 46 separate users have PM'ed innomen (the moderator) to ask that something be done about izbo. In addition, more than 300 reports have been issued against izbo, all alleging legitimate violations of the TOS. According to innomen, "when [izbo]'s on a particular tear, [there will be] 26-30 reports on him" all at once. Supposedly the only reason he hasn't already been banned is because he has a few staunch supporters (such as mikeee and 000ike) who vehemently oppose his ban.

Izbo also has the gall to report other users, typically 3-5 reports at a time. For example, izbo reported people to innomen whose arguments he didn't like. Izbo said, "I want a warning against them, that if they don't actually add arguments they will be banned as trolls."

Innomen will need a replacement for himself within 6 months. Would any of you be willing to moderate with izbo still here? He alone takes up 80% of the moderator's attention.

Charge 6) He's getting worse not better

Rather than showing remorse at his behavior, izbo finds this entire process highly amusing. He has shot down attempts to reach out to him, both by jharry and by his entire defense team. Danielle says that izbo trolled his entire defense team, choosing to spew (and butcher) various philosophical principles rather than accept their help.

Recenlty, he has branched out from the Religion forum to the Forum, calling for Man-is-good's ban and purporting to run for president under the following charming thread title: "Vote Izbo to stop fucktardery." The opening post reads, "This board is full of idiots and fucktards. We have idiots who don't understand their own position, cerebral, idiots who don't understand a syllogism or definitions, jcmt, and idiots who couldn't stay on topic if their lives depended on it, mig. If you vote izbo I vow to make this a place where intelligence and honesty are valued and not pissed on like these people do." [2] This is just obvious trolling.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you don't vote to ban izbo, his behavior will only get worse. He will take your decision as a green light for his behavior and will consider the outcome of this trial as a mandate that he is immune from being banned.

7) We've banned other people for similar behavior

We banned askbob for harassment. We banned NoNo for trolling. Innomen estimates that all-in-all, between 15 and 20 people have been banned for violations similar to izbo's. If we grant him an exception, we must allow all harassers and voter bombers to stay. The slippery slope would also require us to keep all trolls, as long as they "generated activity" in the forums.

Remember, in a poll of DDO users: 23% said that izbo's ban would "significantly increase" their enjoyment of the site and 10% said his ban would "increase" their enjoyment. If one in three DDO users feel that their experience of the website is seriously degraded merely by one member's behavior, then that member clearly needs to be banned.

[1] Cool Hand Luke
[2] Subsequently removed by the moderator;


In this round of debate, I am going to show what kinds of stupidity I am talking about and why I feel it needs to be called out and stopped on this board.

The first example is a supposedly respected member of this board being entirely intelletually dishonest and flat out lying in a debate and then the voters voting for him:

Judges 11: 9 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and passed through Mizpah of Gilead; and from Mizpah of Gilead he advanced toward the people of Ammon. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, "If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, 31 then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering."
32 So Jephthah advanced toward the people of Ammon to fight against them, and the LORD delivered them into his hands. 33 And he defeated them from Aroer as far as Minnith—twenty cities—and to Abel Keramim,[a] with a very great slaughter. Thus the people of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

We actually have retardedarsenal arguing there is no deal between Jephthah and God, when this could not be any clearer if you tried. This is one of my earlier debates and when you lose a debate when the book says exactly what you are stating this badly, you realize that the board may not have any intelligent members. I mean seriously all one has to do is read the passage. We even have our great president voting against me on this one.

Next, we have some nice seafood an argument that everyone turns into a red herring on purpose.

Now lets see why this is obviously a red herring. I asked why murder is wrong in the christian worldview and they go off on a tangent about why I find murder wrong. Whether I find murder good, bad, or indifferent has nothing to do with why it is wrong in the Christian view. I point out their red herring argument yet, the majority of posts continue to use the red herring argument proving my point again about the board as a whole being incompetent to debate. I have also asked the question "In your opinion is murder wrong?" Guess what I get, people asking what is your definition of wrong. How does my opinion of that have anything to do with your opinion? You guessed it, it doesn't.

Next, I have tried to use logic and evidence. I even have tried to teach them basic concepts such as this post:

They fail miserably as you can see by the posts on this post. So, trying to teach people on this board is a failure. Sometimes mockery works to make someone think and it is the only option when logic and evidence fail as is clearly shown in the previous 2 points.

To make matters worse, we have people like Cerebral who don't even know basic word definitions. In this post I give the definition of zombie, also show how it is used in the most popular zombie movie and yet after post after post he fails to grasp zombie is a dead body brought back to life by a supernatural force. Again if basic definitions like zombie stump people on this board, how do we expect to get to logical arguments. It is stupidity like this that needs to be stopped, not me. I actually want to have a discussion but stupidity like this does not allow for any such conversation. We also have JustCallMeTarzan not realize that belief is a positive position that you either have or don't. Again if these basic points can not be comprehended then more complex conversation can not be had.

Now onto freedom of speech, I am one of maybe a couple of people who actually doesn't think religion is a good thing on this board and needs to be challenged and at the end of the day all this is, is an attempt by Innonmen to shut me up as he is a Christian and hates my views. Its clearly not my language or disrespect, that is allowed by many members. The only thing I really do different is have a strong opinion against religion, its not a surprise that I am the only true anti-theist here. They are discriminated against here. I can personally say that people like Diagoras
closed their accounts because of this blatant discrimination against anti-theists. The second you challenge religion as completely idiotic you are attacked from all fronts on this board.

Again, one of the prosecutors is saying I have done something wrong and somehow maintains they are a moral nihilist. I mean if I don't find them wrong in his view, I have no reason not to do them and they are perfectly fine, yet Cerebral took on the case and showed his ignorance of his own views.

I again would like to point out to the jury how little conversation is going on in the religion and debate forums since I have been gone. It is truly sad. Posts with about 5 to 10 responses. When I was here we were consistently getting threads going 80 posts deep or more.

In closing of this argument, it is time this board values education and truth over respecting someones right to act stupid as has been clearly shown on this board. After all, this is a debate board and if simple things like I have pointed out above are not comprehended or cared about by the majority on this board, what is the board anymore? Certainly not an intellectual debate board. People don't like me because I challenge them to think and that is the major problem on here people don't think, I am not the problem. If you want the problem I propose a lot of you look in the mirror.
Debate Round No. 2


Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, izbo seems to merely want to rehash old debates rather than answer the charges against him. Nothing he has cited justifies his continual harassment, vote bombing, and hate speech.

I'll briefly answer his contentions, but all the charges against him still stand - unrefuted.

== Rebuttal ==

R1) Izbo's debate with ReformedArsenal on the topic, "God is guilty of collusion to sacrifice a child in the case of Jepthah"

The main reason that izbo lost this debate so resoundingly is due to the word "collusion." ReformedArsenal points out that in Judges 11:9, the Lord never asks Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter; Jephthah, in fact, unnecessarily makes this promise because as RA points out, the Lord's spirit came to *all* the generals of the Israelite's armies and promised them victory. God clearly did not ask for anything in return in this passage.

All of the RFD's against izbo mention his inability to prove "collusion," which would require God to *ask* for a sacrifice, as he did in the case of Abraham, but *not* in the case of Jepthah.

R2) Izbo's forum post asking Christians why they think murder is wrong

If someone asks you "how would a Christian prove murder is wrong?" a legitimate response is, "how would an atheist prove murder is wrong?" The answer to both questions can be the same.

Secondly, Man-is-good and others started questioning izbo's ability to prove that murder is wrong. In high school Lincoln-Douglas style debate, this morality debate is common. One topic was, "It is morally permissible to kill one person to save one or more people." Value systems like utilitarianism do not expressly forbid murder. Conclusion: the people izbo is complaining about were asking legitimate questions.

R3) People can't grasp logic?

It is worth noting that the thread izbo posts here is yet another "teaching" thread, where izbo purports to teach people about basic logic. Kleptin, a well-respected member of DDO, actually tried to engage with izbo in this thread: "Izbo, I want you to answer me honestly. Do you care more about teaching people what you want to teach them, or do you care more about the ego-boost of pretending to be an authority? Because it seems to be the latter. You're going to be met with resistance not because your ‘students' are ignorant or ill-educated, but because you come across as patronizing and arrogant. The best way to have others receive your ideas is to try to come across as an equal, not as a superior." Izbo's response was that people were too stupid to be considered his peers, so he'd like to continue patronizing and mocking them. This merely proves, yet again, that izbo is beyond help.

R4) What is a zombie?

A zombie is re-animated dead flesh; however, the flesh is still considered dead. Izbo asserts that the body is always re-animated by supernatural forces, but many zombie movies, such as Resident Evil and I Am Legend, employ a virus as the agent which re-animates the flesh of the zombies. A virus explains why people who are bitten by the zombies become zombies themselves.

In this forum discussion, Izbo was arguing that if Jesus was brought back to life by supernatural forces, then Jesus was a zombie. The people who responded to izbo (all of them atheists) pointed out that zombies have additional characteristics, such as mindlessness or soullessness. Random House defines a zombie as, "the body of a dead person supernaturally imbued with the semblance of life and set to perform tasks as a mute, will-less slave OR a living person enslaved in the same manner after the soul has been magically removed." [1] Since the Jesus story asserts that he was restored to life with no defects, he would not be considered a zombie by most people. Izbo asserts fallaciously that anyone brought back to life is a zombie, but ignores the additional requirements for a zombie. Not all undead are zombies.

In many shows that employ witchcraft (Buffy, Charmed, etc) a zombie only results from a resurrection spell *gone wrong.* This normal resurrection/zombie resurrection distinction clearly demonstrates that it is not the case that all formerly dead people are considered zombies.

In addition, in everyday life we call people who look utterly exhausted "zombies," which demonstrates that the most important trait of a zombie is seeming mindlessness. Izbo never asserts that the resurrected Jesus was mindless.

However, this point most perfectly exemplifies how izbo is trying to force this debate to devolve into silliness.

R5) Izbo asserts that JustCallMeTarzan is too stupid to understand what an atheist is

I'll merely show you JCMT's post and you can decide if he is too stupid to grasp the meaning of this word. JCMT wrote: "A pretty simple thought experiment shows that ‘non-theist' and ‘atheist' are not the same thing. First of all, Izbo only presents half the etymology. Atheist derives from Greek - A + Theos. In Greek, the prefix A- can mean ‘lacking' or ‘against.' So right off the bat, there is a semantic distinction to be made between one who lacks a belief in god and one who is against a belief in god. Second, in colloquial English, there are positions like Ignostic and Apatheist. This indicates that there is certainly not the false dichotomy that Izbo presents where Theist and Atheist are the only options. The case of Ignostic proves this to be the case - an Ignostic doesn't address the merits of belief, but first professes uncertainty for lack of a definition of god. But one cannot be ignostic with respect to a particular god. One can, however, be apatheistic with respect to a particular god, indicating that no matter what else, there is indeed a third position. To recap: Izbo's argument impermissibly generalizes all subsets of ‘non-theist' and calls them ‘atheist.'"

Is JCMT too stupid to grasp the meaning of this word? You decide.

R6) izbo contends he is being silenced by all the theists on DDO

I think izbo is the first person to accuse DDO of being rife with theists. Most people on DDO are atheists.

In fact, most of the people izbo calls "idiot theists" are actually atheists. Man-is-good is an atheist. JustCallMeTarzan is an atheist. Cerebral_Narcissist is an atheist. The reason izbo has so many problems with these users it *not* because they are theists and he is an atheist, it is because izbo approaches them in an unfriendly manner and is unwilling to calmly defend his arguments against devil's advocates.

I demand that izbo produce evidence that he has been "attacked from all fronts" by massive groups of theists. I further demand evidence that Diagoras left because of the theist harassment that izbo claims is inherent to DDO.

R7) Cerebral is a moral nihilist

Izbo can attack this straw man all day. I never endorsed moral nihilism in this debate. This is irrelevant. This is not a morality debate. We all agree that this trial is about whether izbo's ban will make DDO a better place. 1 in 3 DDO users say that his ban will make them significantly happier to visit this site.

R8) Izbo generates activity in the forums

Remember, not all activity is good activity. Reviewing the threads izbo posted here, most of the "activity" he generated was counter-trolling. Izbo starts a thread and people started discussing their favorite foods and Shakespeare in an attempt to annoy izbo. This hardly adds anything to the Religion forum.

Second, if we accept izbo's logic here, then we would have to allow all trolls to stay because they all generate lots of forum activity. However, a forum filled almost entirely with troll topics and counter-trolling responses quickly becomes an unreadable forum that no serious members would frequent.

At the end of the day, izbo offers no real defense for his harassment and vote bombing. He merely tries to prove that his actions were all justified, which they clearly are not.



Before getting back to the overwhelming stupidity of this board a couple points:

Most people on this board are not atheists, cerebral is not an atheist, if he is he's a defacto atheist, but he has said things that make me think he clearly holds a belief in god and the same with mig. The majority on here are christian that is a blatant and utter lie. Read your b.s. and weep ddo's demographics page:

It is mainly christian.

Even our prosecutor is too stupid to grasp that belief is to have trust or confidence in. If you are not sure you are without or lacking belief in god.

Is it the or part "or" part of his own definition that gets you jackasses?

prefix A- can mean ‘lacking' or ‘against

you do realize that this means that atheism means either

1: lacking theism
2: against theism

You can be one or the other, you don't need to be both. The definition allows for strong and weak atheism. This is so simple yet people on this board don't grasp that. His own definition defeated him yet he conveniently was unable to comprehend a 1 syllable two letter word like "or." The stupidity on this board is really too strong to rationalize with. Even a supposedly respected member such as blue steel cannot grasp the word "or." Strangely he was not even able to get it after the university of Cambridge puts the A- as meaning- without right in the top graphic. Fucktarded much? This is the type of stuff I deal with on a daily basis, the failure to comprehend basic words.

That leads me to zombies, we are going to use your definition of zombies and I guarantee you it is going to say exactly what I want it to say. I showed this previously and yet cerebral is too stupid to comprehend it. You can look back at the posts:

re�an�i�mate (r-n-mt)
tr.v. re�an�i�mat�ed, re�an�i�mat�ing, re�an�i�mates
1. To give new life to: Her dancing reanimates the classical style.
2. To bring to life; evoke powerfully or effectively

Strange it means to bring back to life. Wow, changing the words to a different word that means the exact same thing does not change my argument. Again a demonstration of stupidity. I want you to show me one definition that says the skin is not alive, that is not a prerequisite to be a zombie. By the way if you want to get semantically about it, the first few layers of our skin is dead, so go fucks yourself, the first few layers of his skin is dead. I even showed that the Night of the Living dead was about dead bodies coming back to life, yet these fucktards were not intelligent enough to grasp that a zombie is a dead body coming back to life. None of this is a new argument, yet they have still yet to grasp this. Intelligence is not something frequently used here.

Next my opponent says that this has nothing to do with morals, really, Im sorry did you not understand this debate is about whether I "ought" to be banned. Ought being a moral concept here. Should you ban me because I harm the site is clearly and utterly a moral topic, yet you have a prosecutor who thinks I have done nothing wrong. Yet at the same time saying I did something wrong. This creates a conflict. The burden of proof is on you, since one of your team members doesn't think there is anything inherently wrong with anything wrong, I would ask for cerebral, one of your prosecutors, to testify that I did nothing inherently wrong. At this point the case must be thrown out because then there is no reason for me to be banned as being banned would imply I did something wrong. The stupidity of putting a moral nihilist on your team was priceless. Before you can prosecute me you must prove that I did something wrong, that ought to be interesting being one of your team members doesn't even believe in wrong.

He goes on to talk about the forum activity I create, I have taught people about bible historicity like the gospel of Q, that Jesus was resurrected bodily, lost gospels and more. I put up valuable lessons debunking Christian Philosophical arguments, and teaching lessons in Philosophy. It is not my fault, as has been demonstrated, that this board does not contain the intelligence level to discuss these topics in a way that would create good dialogue. Instead the topics end up with me talking down to people.

Now, onto vote bombing. I vote against people who make stupid arguments. I try rationalizing, I try mockery and it doesn't work. Now, everyone on here always says well look at my debate record. So, most of the time I read there debates it is inherently retarded so I vote against them. Now, there was one time that I don't remember the name, I voted on his debate, I didn't bother reading his debate because he didn't read mine. Yes, I did that because the idiot posted on my debate, something like Izbo did not defeat any of the opponents arguments. I posted the fallacy the guy used and why it was a fallacy on it. So, he could not have read it. When he got called out for his actions instead of being a man he left. Those are not valuable members on a site and was actually helpful getting a vote bombing troll off the site. Since Innomen only cares about keeping people who are anti christian off the site and does not care about intergrity at some point you must take the methods necessary to change the culture of a site. That may not be Innonmens fault as he is the president of a debate site and has shown a lack of knowledge of what a debate site is:

osted by:
Profile Card

No, this is a debate site if you can't form an argument you should not be here. Is this a troll board or a debate site.
Sunday, September 18, 2011 @ 12:59:18 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card

Wanna debate it?
Sunday, September 18, 2011 @ 1:03:02 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card

de��bate (d-bt)
v. de��bat��ed, de��bat��ing, de��bates
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument.

If you are not providing an argument you are not debating by definition. I guess I am arguing with someone just as stupid.
Sunday, September 18, 2011 @ 1:05:21 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card

Would you like to debate me on anything here?
Sunday, September 18, 2011 @ 1:12:50 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card

You failed to know what a debate is why would I debate someone that can't understand what they are doing.
Sunday, September 18, 2011 @ 1:14:44 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card

so you are saying no?
Sunday, September 18, 2011 @ 1:21:30 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card

yes, if you don't know what a debate is, I will not attempt to debate you, it is an exercise in futility.
Sunday, September 18, 2011 @ 1:23:56 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card

Then you are a hypocrite and should be warned.
Sunday, September 18, 2011 @ 1:32:26 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card

No, i will debate anybody who at least knows what a debate is. You proved you do not.
Sunday, September 18, 2011 @ 1:34:14 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card

Okey Dokey.

This shows are president in a private message failing at the most basic duty of the site, understanding what the site is about so what do you expect me to do, go to him with problems?
Debate Round No. 3


Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I apologize for letting this trial get side-tracked into debates about zombies. I'll try to keep this brief for your convenience.

== Rebuttal ==

R1) Izbo says that most people on this board are Christians

DDO user statistics are useless. They are measuring thousands of people of who signed up, posted once, and then left the site. The user statistics should generally reflect the averages for the English speaking world. However, among *active current members*, there are definitely more atheists than theists.

Izbo claims that Cerebral is a closet theist because of some of the arguments he has advanced against izbo. Apparently izbo has never heard of the term "devil's advocate." Cerebral is most definitely an atheist.

R2) Izbo says that I don't understand the word "or"

Semantics debates aren't all that fun, even when you're engaging in them. I don't care to start a spontaneous semantics debate here. I merely was showing you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that JustCallMeTarzan is anything but stupid. If izbo wanted to have a semantics debate with him, he should have done so in a civilized manner.

R3) Zombies

Izbo purports that his genius will be a great loss to this site. Yet somehow he fails to grasp the argument that not all people who come back to life are zombies because a necessary condition for being a zombie is possessing diminished mental faculties.

For example, on the television program "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," Buffy dies and is brought back to life by her friend (played by Alyson Hannigan) who is a witch. The resurrection spell succeeds, and Buffy is *not* a zombie. Only spells gone *wrong* produce zombies.

If all undead are zombies, then is a vampire a zombie?

Izbo's unwillingness to address the above argument is typical. Many of his opponents are frustrated that he refuses to answer rebuttals to his arguments. If he is truly here to teach and engage with people, he would attempt to address the arguments against him rather than resorting to insults and cussing.*

*It is worth noting that izbo cusses so often, he has found just about every conceivable way to thwart the curse filter.

It is further worth noting that I have had zero interactions with izbo prior to this debate and have done nothing to provoke him, besides accepting the prosecutor's position at innomen's urging. Yet izbo still finds it necessary to call me "fucktarded." This is clear and convincing evidence that he does not actually *want* people to engage his arguments.

R4) Is this a morality debate?

I suppose izbo could make it one, if he wanted to argue for moral nihilism as a justification for why he shouldn't be banned. But he refuses to endorse this ethical position, merely attributing it to a "prosecutor" who has since stepped down. This is the definition of a straw man argument: izbo is building a straw man of moral nihilism, which I never argued for, and then is beating this poor straw man half-to-death. I never argued for moral nihilism in this debate.

Izbo has even complimented me on the ethical system I seem to endorse by arguing that he has harmed the site. Izbo said to me, via a recent PM, "Though I do have to give you credit, you are almost down the path of moral objectivism through facts about harm and benefit to society." Izbo, as a moral objectivist, thus clearly agrees that if I prove that he is harming the site, then I prove that he ought to be banned.

R5) Forum Activity

Izbo says it's not his fault that people are too stupid to "understand" his points. However, to izbo, "understanding" seems to mean posting merely, "yes izbo, you're so right." Questioning izbo's assertions would count as "not understanding," and thus stupidity. Yet, the whole point of a debate site is to engage with people who disagree with you and try to convince them. The point of a debate site is *not* to help you find people of differing opinions so you can insult them and their beliefs.

R6) Vote bombing

Izbo claims he has only vote bombed once without reading. The copious evidence I presented in Round 1 says otherwise. I presented 12 individual cases of vote bombing in Round 1, although there are many more cases if you care to browse izbo's voting record. For example, he vote bombed InquireTruth, one of the most respected theists on this site, at the last second resulting in InquireTruth losing. InquireTruth got quite upset and has not been very active on the site since then.

R7) Conversation with innomen

All I see in the PM's that izbo has presented is more trolling and semantics by izbo, as well as a refusal to actually engage in a debate, which is the whole point of this site. This clearly shows that izbo no longer cares to use this site for its intended purpose but would rather troll the forums and harass people via PM.

I'll present my closing arguments in the last round.


Since I neglected to address the point about collusion previously, here are two definitions that show collusion does not mean what he says it does, and the voters were fucktarded for voting the way they did in that debate.

Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage

: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

It was an agreement to gain an unfair advantage. Strange how the bible even tells us this much. Jepthah, knew he would not win the battle without help from his god, so therefore he offered to god the first person out of his house for sacrifice and god delivered the victory, hence sealing a agreement to gain an unfair advantage. People on here might want to understand definitions before voting. The reason this site is so concerned with defining words in the beginning is not because it should be necessary, but because idiots on here don't understand definitions to begin with.

That is the type of fucktardery I have put up with. Speaking of fucktardery, I have had to deal with MIG for the entire time I am on this site. This guy is nothing but a troll, since I have been here I have told people this. They disagree, but not a single one of them when asked can point out a single contribution of positive means he has made to this site. He doesn't add anything to the site but constant stupid questions, like "what is logic" and "what is truth?"
and "what is our conversation about?". Yes, seriously those are the questions he has asked me. Is he fuckin stupid or just plain dumb, he might want to find his way off of this debate site and to an educator for some help if he doesn't understand what logic and truth are. I don't know what to tell him if he is stupid enough to not understand the context of the conversation he is participating in. Which leads me to I have tried the correct path on this and have reported him to Innoman many times by the report function and by private message and he has done nothing.

If you legitimately have power here, you need to do something about people like Ike, man is good and grey parrot, who troll and red herring posts instead of actually talking about the topic. These types have added nothing of substance to this site. You can look straight forward at my posts, you may not agree with them, but they do have an actual point and argument. The downfall of this site is it is run by trolls who add nothing but trolling.
Saturday, September 17, 2011 @ 2:24:38 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card

Do you expect us to ban someone because you don't like the quality of their posts? Neither are trolls.
Saturday, September 17, 2011 @ 10:25:25 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card

all are trolls, show me one spot where these people have contributed anything of merited to this site in the past 2 or 3 months, beyond red herrings and useless dribble, such as infinite regress nonsense questions.
Saturday, September 17, 2011 @ 10:28:37 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card

If i just wanted people banned because I didn't like the quality of their posts I would be asking for Reformed and Cerebral to be banned, more so reformed but these 2 at least add some arguments to the site(bad ones) but still arguments. The 3 I have mentioned are here to heckle and annoy and nothing more.
Saturday, September 17, 2011 @ 11:44:52 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card

I don't think you know what a troll is.
Saturday, September 17, 2011 @ 12:06:48 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card

a person who comes on a board to harass, with no intention of adding anything meaningful, they all meet this definition.
Saturday, September 17, 2011 @ 12:15:06 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card

A troll's sole purpose is to garner attention to themselves by being annoying. Although these two individuals may do this with you, it certainly isn't their sole purpose. I've had constructive conversations with both of them.
Saturday, September 17, 2011 @ 12:18:55 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card

All I ask is you show one constructive conversation. If you can do that I will drop my complaint, it really shouldn't be that hard if you have had them with each of them.
Saturday, September 17, 2011 @ 12:24:54 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card

Well, my most recent conversation with Man is good was via PM, and i don't c/p PM's, but i will tell you it was a discussion on History and the loss of context due to a reliance on the internet versus books. It was relating to my discussion with Tarzan on the topic of the constitution and religion. With Grey Parrot, it's been a long while since I've talked to him, i used to talk to him a lot when he first came to the site. He's an interesting guy who went back to college late in life, I don't have any exact examples of a conversation with Grey just because it's been a while, but trust me on him.

So, what else am I suppose to do, but take over for myself. I have been harrassed and stalked by the likes of MIG and have got no response whatsoever. He cyber stalks me to facebook. It has been reported and nothing gets done.

As for his claim that there is nothing wrong with what Innoman said in the pm about debates, are we now not even sure our prosecuting attorney knows what a debate is. Lets see a debate in my own words is a situation where 2 or more sides present arguments for and against a conclusion. Strange how one could think that a debate doesnt need arguments, so in order to debate one must know how to present an argument. You, might think he was joking, but it becomes pretty damning when he asks if I want to debate something else, as that means he was serious about debating that topic.

Again, I reiterate my points in this debate:

1. I have dealt with complete stupidity and fucktardery that has left me no other option then to use mockery.
2. My opponent has yet to present a case that there is even a right or wrong, the fact that a fucktard backed out of the debate does not eliminate this necessity.
3. My freedom of speech is being violated so that innoman can rid his site of anyone who seriously opposes christianity.
4. Lack of output on the site, when I was banned the debate site saw a drop in production. Look at the comments on this debate alone, it speaks to how much I draw to this site. People say I add nothing of value to this site. That is interesting, since while those same jackass' only source or freedictionary in their debates I am bringing top level scholarship to the table in the form of quotes from: Bart Ehrman, an author and former chair of religious studies at North Carolina University, Richard Elliot Friedman- University Professor and leading expert on Old Testament Scholarship, J.L. Mackie- a world renowned philosopher, Robert Wright a Professor of religion at 2 Ivy League Schools, Victor Stenger-a world renowned physicist. Strange how I rarely win sources, but I bring these type of sources to the table and the majority of this board brings fucktardery to the table. I have just ordered 3 new books on new testament scholarship to read and bring to the table, that is as I count it 3 more books then MIG, cerebral, and Innoman have read on religion combined. What are those 3 books: Lost Christianities by bart ehrman , Lost Gospel and Who wrote the new testament by Burton Mack. But,yet I am the uneducated one here, inspite of the books I have read.
Debate Round No. 4


Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I will provide a *brief* response to izbo's prior round and then proceed to my closing argument.

== Rebuttal ==

Izbo complains, yet again, about various debates he has had. He complains, yet again, about the "stupidity" of the entire site. It makes you wonder why izbo even *wants* to stay. If he dislikes the site to such an extent and dislikes *everyone* on it, why stay? His only possible motivation would have to be to cause as much mayhem as possible on a site he dislikes and against people he despises. At the end of the day, you are left with the impression that you are doing izbo a favor by banning him.

Izbo complains that Man-is-good stalked him on Facebook. If he was truly concerned with this, he would have set his Facebook settings to private. The only reason that Man-is-good was able to verify, with 100% certainty, that Erik Dickerson was izbo was because izbo posted (bastardized and out of context) quotes from JustCallMeTarzan, Cerebral, ReformedArsenal, and others in order to mock these quotes with his Facebook friends. Izbo really has no right to complain about this.

Let's evaluate izbo's 5 "defenses" of his actions:

1) The people on this site are stupid and deserve to be mocked

Izbo has repeatedly shown that he considers everyone but "yes men" to be stupid. Failure to wholeheartedly agree with izbo's points is considered stupidity, by him. Playing devil's advocate will draw izbo's wrath. Voting against izbo because his arguments weren't convincing will invoke his wrath. Asking him one simple question will make him your mortal enemy. This is clearly *not* someone who belongs on a site devoted to honest intellectual discourse.

2) Izbo says I have presented no case that there is a right and wrong

Izbo has moved on into the realm of new logical fallacies. The latest one is demanding negative proof. If izbo had argued in favor of moral nihilism, I could have argued against it. But izbo, instead, agreed via PM that if I prove harm to the site that would jive with his views on morality. For someone who purports to be the sole authority on "logic" on this site, izbo sure commits a great deal of logical fallacies.

3) Freedom of speech/theist oppression

Izbo seems to be hatching some strange conspiracy theory that we're all secretly theists sent here to thwart his plans. The fact remains, izbo ends up harassing mostly atheists merely because they question him or play devil's advocate.

As to freedom of speech, izbo concedes that a privately owned website can restrict not only membership, but speech as well. He further concedes that hate speech and harassment are not protected forms of expression.

4) Izbo creates activity

Izbo says that he is a positive force because he has generated many comments on this debate. What I see when I look at the comments section is people rallying around a common enemy. The same style argument as izbo's would say that Hitler was a positive force for helping to rally so many diverse groups to oppose him. Hitler, also, made the world a "less boring" place. Valuing "activity" above all else would be a perverse mistake.

As I've stated, not all activity is good activity. If it were, we'd allow all trolls to stay. Most activity surrounding izbo involves either: complaints about him or counter-trolling measures designed to annoy izbo. Neither of those are reasons to keep him here. Lastly, I've shown that izbo has gotten worse recently, resorting to full on trolling on the Forum, calling for Man-is-good's ban and announcing his own campaign for president in order to "stop fucktardery."

5) Izbo reads books and tells us about them

Izbo names a number of books he has read or will read. In all honesty, if I wanted a simple, easily digestible summary of what any of those books contained, izbo is the last person I would ask.

== Closing Argument ==

1) Vote bombing

This is a ban-worthy offense all by itself. Izbo never contests the fact that *at least* half of his 39 votes are vote bombs. He never contests the allegation that he didn't read most of those debates and vote bombed specific members due to a personal vendetta against those members. He left horribly derogatory RFD's in all cases. He seems to want to chase new theist members off the site with RFD's like: "stupid christians are stupid" or "ignorant christians are ignorant, take your head out of your a$$ and throw the bible away." Ninja_Tru left because of izbo's vote bombing. InquireTruth, a top 10 debater, has not been back in 3 months after being vote bombed by izbo and admitting discouragement at izbo's vote bomb and RFD. We cannot maintain the quality of our membership with someone consistently vote bombing. Refusing to ban izbo *sanctions* the practice of vote bombing. If we don't ban izbo, we cannot ban others for similar offenses. Unless you want a site full of vote bombers, vote to ban izbo.

2) Harassment

Izbo admits to harassing various members via PM. Again, he fails to apologize for his behavior and refuses to curtail said practice. Cliff.Stamp, who was a valuable addition to the site and who voted extremely often on many of our debates, left the site because of izbo's harassment. Again, we cannot maintain the quality of our membership with someone who consistently harasses other members. It is *unacceptable* to call another member a "fvcking moron" or a "piece of sh!t" via PM merely because you did not like his or her RFD. If you, ladies and gentlemen, would not enjoy being the target of izbo's harassment, please respect the people who he *has* harassed by banning him. The harassment and vote bombing are the reasons why one in three DDO users has stated that izbo's ban will increase their enjoyment of the site. If you vote to ban izbo, you make *one-third* of the site significantly happier.

3) Carte Blanche

Izbo has made clear that he would consider a favorable outcome from this trial to be a carte blanche to act however he pleases. If you refuse to ban him, expect his behavior to escalate. Expect more troll topics. Expect more harassment. Expect more vote bombing. Expect more cussing and insults. Expect izbo's glee to be documented on Facebook. Innomen has been able to remove some of the most offensive content izbo has posted, but will not be able to do so if the community sanctions his behavior.

Also, consider the precedent you are setting here. If you ban izbo, you are giving innomen the go ahead to continue to ban people for similar offenses. If you refuse to ban izbo, we may as well not have a moderator. Izbo's offenses are just about as bad as they come, so if his behavior is not ban-worthy, no behavior is ban-worthy.

4) Degraded the quality of the site

If you would not want to frequent a Religion forum where someone insults everyone and calls them "fucktards" all day, then vote to ban izbo. The Religion forum and comments sections of many debates have become unbearable to read for many members. High quality members will not frequent a site where the top 3 threads in a particular forum all contain the word "fucktards" in the title. We may not all care deeply about the Religion forum, but some members on this site *do.* Respect those members by banning izbo.

5) Moderator

If you want anyone to ever replace innomen as moderator, you're going to have to ban izbo. I personally would never become moderator if I knew that I'd get 500 reports on izbo that I was not empowered to act upon. I would not want to deal with izbo reporting 4-5 other members each day. A vote not to ban izbo is a vote for no moderation.

In conclusion, izbo adds nothing *positive* to this site. Izbo has done nothing but degrade the quality of the site in various ways. Izbo is a deterrent to attracting and keeping high quality members. And for many reasons, a vote in favor of izbo is a vote for "no moderation" of the site.

Please do the right thing. Do izbo the favor of voting to ban him from the site he so detests.


I love the allegations that the quotes I posted on facebook were bastardized. They are direct quotes of these peoples stupidity.

Throughout this debate I have pointed out the stupidity and fuctarded nature of the people on this site. In the comments it has become clear that will not change. If you paid attention to the comments we had a gem of discussion where Masterkage argued that this was an accurate definition of zombie: zom�bie
   [zom-bee] Show IPA
(in voodoo)
the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose.

This came from a decent source so, it could seem ok. But, since my definition came from a equally good source we neeeded to figure out which one made more sense.

S: (n) zombi, zombie, living dead (a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force)

we needed to figure out which one was right. I pointed out that in Return of the living dead 3 the girl in that was a zombie and not mute. Therefore rendering his definition false. If zombies do not have to be mute then a definition that says they do is false. This is when true fucktardery came out. People on this site claimed that it was an argument from authority. Do you people have a fuckin clue what an argument from authority was. All one needs to do is decide whether the statement that the girl in return of the living dead 3 is zombie. I am not asking you to believe it because they say so, you can judge for yourself.

This line of reasoning is about this good. I go to and find a definition of dog that says this: a mammal usually with a tail and hair that has 6 legs. I say Benji is a dog and point out that he has 4 legs in the Benji movies. This is not an argument from authority, but alas this is the fucktardery I am forced to deal with on a daily basis here.

To call these people stupid and fucktarded is no more of an insult to any one of them then it is to point out Tony Arsenal is a male. It is part of who they are. It is pointing out a fact about them.

When it comes down to it, my oponent has never addressed the argument that there is nothing inherently wrong with violating the terms of service or the fact that it is just a matter of opinion whether we should uphold them. Since he has not addressed the moral nihilist position, there is really no reason what so ever to ban me. it is only a matter of opinion. So, technically there is no reason I should be banned. That is the resolution and he has failed to meet it. He has thrown out all sorts of allegations but made not attempt to prove they are wrong.

I have pointed out that Innoman is just anti atheists who attack christians. This is his way of getting rid of me. There is no one on the religious forums or on this site who brings the amount of research and top level resources to this site as I do. As, I pointed out I bring Philosophers: JL Mackie, Alvin Plantinga; Scientists: Sam Harris, Victor Stenger Religious Studies Academics: Bart Ehrman, Richard Elliot Friedman, Robert Wright, Karen Armstrong, just to name some of my sources. There is not a person on this site who can boast that they have used better sources then that. and other definition sites are the norm, while I bring academic research to the table. The allegation that I bring nothing to the table is ridiculous.

My other point is the site saw a distinct decline in posts while I was banned. There was a post about christmas for atheists, that was easily cleared up when I got back and gave an accurate historicity of Christmas and how Christians stole it from the Pagans, beginning with Constantine. Sadly, for an supposedly elite site, nobody but me was able to point out these facts.

Finally, this is a clear violation of my freedom of speech. If there is one right americans constantly take advantage of it is the right to give our rights away. His argument about this being a website so freedom of speech does not apply is only an reinforcement of that poor way of thinking. Do the right thing, bring this world closer to were it should be and continue to allow ideas to be heard. As is clearly obvious, I learned something from my marketing classes, I wanted my ideas to be heard, and my ideas are always among the most commented and discussed. Therefore my ideas are getting out there to people, the question remains will any of the people here be bright enough to understand them. There is some hope, people like f-16falcon and geo and wnope have understood some of my points.
Debate Round No. 5
648 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by innomen 9 months ago
Is there a debate that had more comments on it than this one?
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
Posted by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
This debate is almost nothing but votebombs. I demand another trial with more recent voting rules in play.
Posted by Pitbull15 2 years ago
Posted by NightofTheLivingCats 2 years ago
Damn. Good times.
Posted by thett3 2 years ago
This was nearly 2 years ago guys...
Posted by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Well, good times indeed. :)
Posted by Mysterious_Stranger 3 years ago
Hard to imagine something this big happening now. The worst we've got now is MassiveDump...
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
so this is what happened before my time...
43 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by CAPLlock 4 years ago
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter
Vote Placed by WriterSelbe 4 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Considering Con's mental disabilities, I believe he deserves an A for effort! Considering all, he did very well with his spelling and amused me greatly, and he also behaved adequately on the standards of izbo10. Since izbo pretty much knew he was going to be banned, I feel he used this as a debate to vindicate his previous losses as wins, which I'm fine with. We will miss you as much as we miss Escobar! And for some of us that's a lot! I look forward to izbo11!
Vote Placed by LeoL 4 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: It's boring without him lol...
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious.
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 4 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: for pony.
Vote Placed by ScarletGhost4396 4 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: Con doesn't really refute that he did any of these negative actions. Rather, he tries to justify them. The cursing on the side of the Con doesn't make it any better, and bluesteel shows to have been able to use his evidence well. Bluesteel takes this one.
Vote Placed by Cobo 4 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: fuck it. I wonder what happen's if we all give izbo our points as rememberance to the greatest trouble maker on DDO. So long will be missed
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: even though he's gone, and crazy and I hope never to see him again, I am giving him points so he didn't lose by as much.
Vote Placed by jimtimmy 4 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Ultra counter vote bomb
Vote Placed by DaBestGuy1010 4 years ago
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Go Pro!