The DDO member known as "Lexus" has trolled a substantially large number of members.
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2 Pro: Presents a list of victims with evidence of the trolling
Round 2 Con: Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4 Pro: Final Rebuttal
Round 4 Con: Waives round (To be fair, since Pro has the 100% Burden of proof)
Resolution: There is a substantially large number of cases in which the DDO Member know as "Lexus" (whose profile link is give in Round 1) has trolled other members on this site.
Profile Link: http://www.debate.org...
Burden of Proof: Pro, Innocent until proven guilty.
Substantially Large: 3 or more people (Not just 3 instances to one person)
Member: A person whom belongs to a group
Trolled: Deliberately trying to make one upset, attempting to change the intended topic to something else, or using sketchy practices to win a debate
Sketchy: Not ethical, unfair
1. If you are Lexus or are an alternate account of Lexus, YOU MAY NOT ACCEPT. After just having one debate with you, I know ever allowing you to accept one of my debates would just result in the topic changing to something completely irrelevant.
2. The definitions presented here are UNDISPUTABLE. Any definitions presented afterwards are all debatable.
3. You must follow the debate structure as represented at the top of Round 1.
4. Breaking of any rules results in immediate loss.
If you feel as though Lexus has not commited the crime that I am about to argue she did, please except.
Link to the Evidence:
Explanation: The intended debate (1) was a humorous "role play" of Cate arguing that He is better than Doge, who is trying to prove the exact opposite. Little did I know, Lexus was going to join. She joined simply to exploit a loophole in the rules and definitions of the debate. She attempted to change the topic to a debate between "a delicacy" and "the chief magistrate of Venice or Genoa" of which one is better. I held my ground, and instead we argued about the true definitions of the words I gave in the context of which I gave them.
Lexus also went on to try to further annoy me in a few other places. She gave a poorly constructed RFD for her vote on one of my debates (2), which I argued against. She has since then changed it, but reluctantly. There is evidence still left behind in the comments. I explain their why it is a poorly constructed RFD, which can only be explained by knowing what the debate was and the rules of the debate. Please refer to that. The entire vote was merely a way to agitate me, making me more prone to lash out at her during the Cate vs Doge debate (1). She had given that vote before I had posted my argument for Round 2 of the Cate vs Doge debate (1).
Finally, after I admittedly started a private message with her regarding the vote, she began to use horrible logic to justify her RFD on the vote. It was so bad in fact, that after disclosing the conversation, she opted to report me. I am not allowed to disclose the information however. The private message information will not be regarded as evidence against her, but I will bring this paragraph back up later for another victim of Lexus.
Link to the Evidence:
Explanation: The topic appears as though it is a simple discussion of the Earth flatness (1). However, Lexus has a card up her sleeve. After her victim accepts the debate, she surprises him with this: "I thank my opponent and hope that he realized that he is accepting a debate that is within the section of 'religion', which means that all arguments must be based on religious reasoning or religious wording." This is unfair to the victim, who does accept Lexus's silly conditions stated AFTER the debate has started. I would also like to point out that Lexus only uses the "category" strategy when it benefits her. Take a look at my debate (Cate vs Doge). I will give some quotes from Lexus during that: "Regardless of what category this debate is in, we must debate the resolution based on the resolution alone; not outside factors. We cannot put a gay marriage debate in the "technology" area and expect only technological arguments, that is absurd. It was my thinking that you simply put this in the wrong category. It is not my burden to correct what category you put your debates in." and "My opponent claims that because he set this debate in the funny category, doge is defined as a meme... this is fallacious, because this is a serious error in reasoning. It is not up to me to make sure you placed this in the right category. As I said, if someone makes a gay marriage debate and puts it in the "technology" category, one cannot assume that they must only use technological arguments. That would be absurd, so my opponent's claims are unjustified."
Link to the Evidence:
Explanation: tshuck makes the mistake of not defining absolutely every last word in his debate (1) in round 1 before it becomes disputable. Lexus swooped in and caught her prey. She immediately changes the intended meanings of the word so that the opponent has an impossible argument to win. tschuk declares that Lexus is being nonsensical and that he has been receiving explicit private messages from her, trying to obtain information. Later in my own private message, Lexus learns that I play Minecraft account and immediately asks for my Minecraft username, which of course I refused to give her. Again, everything that is contained in private messages is not evidence, since it is subjective. Only I can view what she said, since she is not compliant with me giving out the information contained in the private message.
Link to the Evidence:
Explanation: gametimer wanted to argue about which had a more deadly bite, a zombie or a vampire in this debate (1). He didn't define exactly what he meant, so yet again, Lexus swoops in and catches the prey. She defines zombies and vampires as ficticious, making the resolution that gametimer wanted to argue impossible to. He gave up immediately after seeing her argument, which I don't personally blame him for.
I now note that Con must refute at least 2 of the 4 above cases. Good luck to Con. Also, after just briefly looking at your debate history, I can tell your rebuttal will be filled with ad hominems. I ask that you please don't do that, especially since you have already called me a "fool."
masterdrave forfeited this round.
You open this debate like an insecure bully, directly attacking another member of this humble website, and naming him a troll. You truly are a shocking case. What horror did you have to worm your way through in some past life to be this awful to the world? What did poor Lexus ever do to you? You would waste your time and intellect (although there is very little of it) by censuring and bullying a person you have never even met. You are the lowest of the low. You are the scum at the base of the earth's pits.
I see now that you are 18 years of age. What are you doing with your life? I honestly hope no serial murderers have taken you in as their apprentice yet. You still have a chance to turn this all around. You just need to get out of the abuse game and pick yourself up. Step out of your mother's basement and into the light. You can do it. I know you can.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by cathaystewie 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: No arguments offered by CON, resorts to personal attacks and insults. PRO was the only one to issue arguments and abide by common etiquette. My vote goes to PRO.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.