The user "ark428" is a horrible troll
Debate Rounds (4)
Except this one is not hidden.
He is also not intelligent.
Simply put, he's awful at being a troll, "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages." 
Accept and defend yourself, lame wisecrack.
Not only are your assertions completely false, seeing as I am clearly not a mythical beast or someone lacking in intelligence (IQ is 155, just for some evidence) but you yourself are exactly what you are preaching against.
You defined a "troll" as someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages.
You have not presented evidence of such posts or inflammatory comments. While I cannot say that you are posting anything extraneous or off-topic considering this is a free debate forum to post any arguments you wish, and this is after all an argument, I can still point out that you're posting inflammatory comments.
In this debate, as I've stated previously, you have called me unintelligent, an internet troll, and a lame wisecrack. You have backed this up with no evidence of your own except a source from wikipedia that clearly defines a "Troll" as a mythical creature, contradicting your original definition.
I'd now like to define inflammatory: "tending to excite anger, disorder, or tumult"
In only the first round, you sir, have made inflammatory comments. Therefore, by your own definition, you are a troll.
Also, I'm excited to once again be debating my former classmate, my good pal, Mr. XStrikeX. I am not sure if he share this excitement considering the terms of which he started this debate.
Thank you for taking this debate.
For once, ark428 actually argues something. Haven't seen this before.
I'll begin with refuting every thing he has said.
Con's First Point: "I am clearly not a mythical beast..."
As I strictly defined in the first round, I am not referring to a mythical being, but an Internet troll, "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages." 
Con even recognizes this later on, so I don't see the relevance in bringing this up in the first place.
Con's Second Point: Con claims to be intelligent
I don't even understand why intelligence is in this debate. Regardless of whether or not the Opposition is intelligent or not, neither brain power nor IQ determine if someone is a troll. Disregard any mention of "intelligence."
Con's Third Point: XStrikeX is a troll because he posts inflammatory comments
Firstly, I'm no troll. I take debates seriously. And just because I merely insulted you does not make me a troll. There's no proof that a single insult transforms someone into an Internet troll. Secondly, even if I was a troll, that would not be relevant to this debate. I'm arguing that you are a HORRIBLE troll, and you must defend yourself, not simply claim I am a troll. That wouldn't be debating the resolution. It's irrelevant and disproven.
I am arguing that ark428 is not only just a troll, but a horrible, terrible one.
Firstly, I will prove that he is trying to troll, then I will prove that he's bad at it.
1. User "ark428" is trying to troll
The Opposition has challenged user "Topiarey" to two topics, entitled "'Merica" and "'Merica Round 2."
Let's take a look at the first debate, 'Merica. 
In this, it would seem to be ark428's intention to frustrate Topiarey. He created a one round debate, posting no arguments and merely concluding with, "I will wait for my opponent to present his points," as if he believes he's being funny.
Let's examine 'Merica Round 2. 
Here ark428 begins to argue. His first contention is that "'Mericuh is awesome." He goes on to say that other countries are "run by little girls," and that America has the best food ("cheeseburgers"). ANY DEBATER, even a bad one, recognizes that these arguments are terrible, especially due to their lack of reasoning or evidence. ark428, therefore, must be trying to troll.
The Opposition has also attempted to troll user "Arch."
Let's analyze the debate "People are stupid." 
ark428's first and only contention: ". I wait for my opponent to say something."
Not only does he waste Arch's time, but he's not even funny. He's a terrible troll.
Unfortunately, his next debate, "'Merica with another person" has been removed by Customer Support. Probably because it was also meaningless.
His final debate with "Arch" is called "My opponent will lose this debate." 
Burden of proof was not met. He was clearly trolling.
The Opposition, for the most part, is not actually debating on this website. He's trolling, trying to waste people's time, and he's not even good at it. He's not funny and his trolling is lame. He tries to upset people, but he's terrible at it; therefore, ark428 is a terrible troll.
2. 'Merica - http://debate.org...
3. 'Merica Round 2 - http://debate.org...;
4. People are stupid - http://debate.org...;
5. My opponent will lose this debate - http://debate.org...;
Now I'll defend my points:
1. I am not a mythical beast.
I think that you incorrectly regarded this as a point. This existed simply as an observation as to why you were sourcing a page that clearly defines Troll as a mythical beast with me. I recognized later on that you had severely contradicted yourself with different definitions of troll.
2. I claim to be Intelligent.
Again, you incorrectly regarded this as a point. I was pointing out how rude, and slanderous you are being without actually fact checking. You falsely call me stupid for no reason in your original post, and my example of my IQ was simply a means to show that your arguments and slander are not backed.
3. XStrikeX is a troll.
Well, XStrikeX, based on your definition of "troll", merely insulting me DOES make you a troll. And I quote: "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages." Sorry, but you can't just concede your definition strictly because it negatively impacts you. Plus, that wasn't even a point of its own, however I'll make it one now.
XStrikeX is a troll. He blatantly insults his opponent's for no reason, therefore his arguments should have no weight simply because matching his definition, he is only creating inflammatory, extraneous, and off-topic messages.
Now to refute your points.
1. User Ark428 is trying to Troll.
a) Your point on 'Merica is that I was trying to "irritate" Topiarey. However, I honestly didn't realize I had set it to a single round instead of two rounds. Topiarey is a friend of mine, so luckily he wasn't put off by this mistake. People make mistakes. They are not trolls because of it.
b) Your argument against 'Merica Round 2 is truly ridiculous. "Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument." Any argument that is interactive and representational is "debate", as was my debate against Topiarey, therefore it is not inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic considering this is a site strictly for debating. I was simply trying to argue a side that I don't personally agree with strictly for the purpose of debating. Your assumption that this is immediate trolling is ridiculously inflammatory.
c) Your point on "People are stupid." is again invalid for the same reason your argument against "'Merica" was. Again, Arch is a great friend of mine and was not put off by my mistake in this debate, selecting one round instead of two. I always wished to have a legitimate debate on that topic, and made a simple mistake. Mistakes do not = trolling.
d) Thats great. Do you have any proof that "'Merica with another person" was trolling? No.
e) If the burden of the proof was not met, then he simply fails to win the debate. If losing the debate makes you a troll, then that means that one person in every debate is a nasty, horrible Troll by my opponent's logic.
Your conclusion is invalid because it relies on the validity of your contentions.
NOW TO CLARIFY MY POINTS:
1. I am not a troll.
Your definition basically dooms you. As you can see, all of your evidence comes from legitimate arguments, aka debates (Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument.), therefore they are neither extraneous nor off-topic. The two you got me on were mistakes on my part, HOWEVER they are legitimate debates considering my opponent made an argument against my case, meaning that my actions in challenging my opponent fall under the definition of debate which is not extraneous nor off topic.
I don't have to say anything else other than prove that I'm not a troll. My opponent has been rather vulgar and rude throughout this debate, insulting me time and time again. He has called me stupid, assumed that I'm a troll, and called me a lame wisecrack. This writing is clearly the actions of a troll. Should we acknowledge arguments from a man like this who uses "inflammatory, extraneous, and off-topic" arguments? No!
Therefore, I am not a troll for all the reasons I have stated, and Aff IS for all the reasons I've stated.
1. "I am not a mythical beast."
Con states that my Wiki source defined troll as a mythical beast. While my source seemingly did, it is not my fault. If you look up "troll," you'll find the mythical beast and the Internet troll on Wikipedia. I tried to use the Internet troll definition as a source, but for some reason, as you can see in Round 1, it removes the (Internet) part of the URL from the source, so it would then lead you to the mythical troll. While I overlooked this error, I didn't expect DDO to change my source, and there was little I could've done about it. Regardless, it's pretty clear what the intentions of this debate are. As I stated in the First Round, the definition of "troll" is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages. 
So it's clear what we're arguing about.
2. XStrikeX is a troll.
As stated before, regardless of whether or not I AM a troll, that's completely irrelevant to the topic. The topic is about the Opposition being a "horrible troll." Furthermore, just because I insulted you does not automatically make me a "troll," regardless of your abuse of semantics. I'm sure the readers would agree that a troll is not just someone who insults another person. It's on a much grander scale than that. Anyway, it's irrelevant. This point should be disregarded.
Defending My Assertions
1. Ark428 is trying to troll.
Con tries to refute me by claiming that he mistakenly set his debates to 1 round. Because he simply made a mistake, he claims to not be a troll.
This is ridiculous. Let me point out that he has not made "a mistake" but multiple, if he truly is accidentally setting his debates to one round. In the 4/4 debates he has instigated, he has made them ALL one-round debates. This does not seem like a mere accident or mistake. I believe Con is trying to avoid the issue here with falsities.
b) 'Merica Round 2
"I was simply trying to argue a side that I don't personally agree with strictly for the purpose of debating. Your assumption that this is immediate trolling is ridiculously inflammatory."
Con tries to bypass the issue by claiming that he was intentionally debating for a side he didn't personally agree with, and he passionately, honestly did it. Looking at his arguments, I'd have to disagree. Even the least intelligent of humans would recognize that arguments like ark428 used in 'Merica Round 2 are useless, trivial, and poor. And since Con claims to be a very intelligent being (his IQ is 155, for example!), he is definitely capable of making better arguments than "Cheeseburgers Mackin'." He has not taken his debates seriously; he must be trying to troll people.
c) People are stupid
"Again, Arch is a great friend of mine and was not put off by my mistake in this debate, selecting one round instead of two. I always wished to have a legitimate debate on that topic, and made a simple mistake. Mistakes do not = trolling."
This is extremely suspicious. What are the chances of making that same mistake four times in a row?
Furthermore, assuming that he set the same time for voting for each debate, "People are stupid" comes 15 hours after "'Merica Round 2." 15 hours is plenty of time to realize he's made a mistake, let alone realize he's losing to Topiarey and should recognize his error. I don't believe any of these claims.
d) 'Merica with another person
He doesn't even refute this. Customer Support removed it, and for a reason. You offered no assertions, and you made another one-round debate... "mistakenly," I assume?
It was a great case of trolling that I wish I could show the readers.
e) Burden of Proof
"If the burden of the proof was not met, then he simply fails to win the debate. If losing the debate makes you a troll, then that means that one person in every debate is a nasty, horrible Troll by my opponent's logic."
The Burden of Proof is being and has been met. I don't understand the latter statement at all. It'd seem like my opponent has agreed he's a nasty, horrible Troll. Please explain this.
Refuting His Points
A) " I am not a troll."
"all of your evidence comes from legitimate arguments"
My opponent has not made "legitimate arguments" in his debates. In one, he made silly arguments, and since he claims to be so intelligent, he must be capable of more. He's certainly trying in this debate. Your arguments in 'Merica Round 2 are clearly silly, illegitimate, and it's pretty clear you're trying to upset Topiarey. Even imabench knows it. "Conduct to con again for pro spamming stupid 1 round debates with no real resolution." - imabench 
In the other three that haven't been banned (lol), you don't say anything at all. I'm not falling for your excuse that you accidentally clicked "one round." 5/5 times, including your removed debate? I don't buy it.
"they are legitimate debates considering my opponent made an argument against my case"
They are not legitimate because you offered no case. That's the simple answer. They were illegitimate, you had no arguments, and said nothing; therefore, they are not debate.
"My opponent has been rather vulgar and rude throughout this debate, insulting me time and time again."
I've insulted you like twice, not "time and time again." Anyway, my behavior has been much more honorable than yours in other debates, probably even this once, seeing as you're trying to dodge most of the accusations with untrue claims.
"This writing is clearly the actions of a troll. Should we acknowledge arguments from a man like this who uses "inflammatory, extraneous, and off-topic" arguments?"
Look, whether or not I am a troll, which I have proven I am not, that is irrelevant. The topic is not "XStrikeX is a horrible troll," but that you are.
My opponents one assertion (which isn't even argument, just defense) has been refuted. I have defended and extend my assertions. I have offered more sources than my opponent, as well as more evidence. I have exposed my opponent's false claims and have shown why he is a horrible troll.
I look forward to the response and final round.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(Internet) <= It did it again! Please just put an underscore between the terms "Troll" and "(Internet)." Thank you.
ark428 forfeited this round.
A forfeit is a major detriment to the Opposition's case.
I extend all my arguments, and beg of my opponent not to introduce new arguments or refutations, as it is unfair since I cannot answer them.
Thanks for a great debate.
ark428 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Topiarey 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: To be honest, Pro had more convincing arguments because most of the went unrefuted. Con shouldn't have forfeited. Conduct to pro for not forfeiting.
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.