The Instigator
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
166 Points
The Contender
philosphical
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The user known as 'philosphical' is the same person as the user known as 'GhostWriter.'

Do you like this debate?NoYes+13
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 25 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,026 times Debate No: 11915
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (25)

 

Danielle

Pro

Philosphical has been a pillar of morality for this entire community. He has never been shy about correcting other people, or putting his foot down in the face of injustice. He has sworn that he would NEVER (!) do something like make another account on DDO, V-bomb, or pretend to be someone he is not. Obviously a man of his stature would not be so hypocritical and condescending to those liars and cheats whom many now consider his peers. However, philosphical has indeed been accused of some harsh matters which he says he will defend against any accusation. I am here to help him prove to the world that he is indeed telling the truth by giving him the opportunity to lay out his defense in a clear and organized fashion. So, without further adieu, if my opponent accepts this debate then I will begin discussion in Round 2. For clarity:

Philosphical: http://www.debate.org...
GhostWriter: http://www.debate.org...
philosphical

Con

The user "TheLwerd" Seems to have unmountable evidence on me being another user by the name of GhostWriter. I will be arguing against this position.

Her arguments and my refutations are as follows:

1. I defended myself against a claim that I was multi-accounting, when the thread could have been intended for the moderator Phil instead of me.
http://www.debate.org...

------
This is a rather ridiculous argument, because askbob posted the forum topic directly after Vi_veri persecuted me for the same exact thing. Now I responded naturally confused because I am not the user ghostWriter, and a random forum topic being created over it naturally appeared to me as confusing. If you were getting accused falsely for having a second account, that you indeed did not have, would you too not get defensive?
------
2. I called out three of her mafia members in ORP day phase one, and she believes it is because I am GhostWriter.
http://www.debate.org...
------
I was unaware of the fact that my mafia predictions were correct until just recently. After my being lynched off on day phase one I lost interest in the for a few weeks, never bothering to check the game results. Turns out the three I called out were exactly correct. Now Lwerd doesn't find the mistake she made in defending ghostwriter, and jumping back and forth between KRF, proper evidence to lead them all three to being mafia. Her mistake was clearly obvious, however. I'm going to go ahead and re-iterate a simplified version of how Lwerd screwed herself over in that game.

First check the third to last post here where Nags suggests lynching GW.

http://www.debate.org......
-------

Second post on this page Lwerd seemingly ignores most of the crucial stuff in nags post and instantly jumps to "wait, why GW?".

Why care?

http://www.debate.org......
--------

Two posts beneath that (same link) Nags notes that it was just a suggestion.
-------

Fourth post down in this link, GW gets really defensive even after suspicion on her died.

http://www.debate.org......
--------

Right beneath it (same link) KRF too jumps to protect GW from nags, even when nags said it was just a suggestion and dropped it long ago.
------

Now I jump in two post below the last one, and call L out for using her logic of lynching new players, even though feverish and GW contributed very little, and she makes absolutely no reference to them, only reference to nags for picking up suspicion on GW.

Then I ask her why she cared so much about GW and not KRF.
-----

Fourth post down Leaf rod notes that this is normal of nags, so why was it brung up? Meaning he was one of the people like me who saw how ridiculous it was for them to jump to her defence.

http://www.debate.org......
------
Two posts beneath that (same link) Lwerd makes the classic defence of her just casually asking the question. Then BOOM out of no where she starts saying she has not reason to suspect KRF. Wait a second. Weren't you just prosecuting him a little while ago? This is what made me catch that she was protecting KRF as well.
-------
Now I bring up how L accuses wonder woman of being noobish and none of the other noobs. Big fail on her part. Then I bring up how unusual it was for her to question that randomly. Next I bring up How she accuses me of protecting nags even though I was voting to lynch him, and I was still convinced that it could very well just be a theory, thus finding it odd that she would say that.

(first post)
http://www.debate.org......
--------
Third post down GW makes lame excuse as to why she is not mafia, saying that I was accusing her of being mafia for not posting. And I never said that. She pretty much gave Lwerd and herself up right here making it blatantly obvious there both mafia.
(third post down)
---------
Same link next one down, L says in her third paragraph that nags made a silly reference to GW. Okay so if it was so silly then why did you care? More suspicion.
Next paragraph down L says that I was accusing her of protecting KRF and GW. This I got a little confused by seeing as I did not mention she was protecting KRF. It seemed obvious to me at this point that she was essentially doing just that: Protecting them both. Which she had no need to do seeing as I never even referenced her protecting him indicating her being mafia. Another fail.
--------
Post below that nags explains the obvious, that is was just a minor suggestion that Lwerd made into a bigger deal than it needed to be.
-------
Post below that you randomly start going along with your jumping on nags GW theory. WTF? Again reference me and nags being on a team when I'm still voting to lynch him, and only using your post as a theory.
-------
Post below that promises to role reveal. Then doesn't. Nice.
------
Same arguments continue for a couple pages.
------
Third to last post, third paragraph, L randomly says she was persecuting KRF even though she just defended him. WTF??

http://www.debate.org......
-------
Argument continues. L fake role reveals. Why? Idk. Nobody was asking her to, and after being called out for being mafia, she must have decided she was screwed if she didn't, even though I was the only one to catch on to her mistake (besides nags).

http://www.debate.org......
------
I Point out VI because she has been on your side pretty much the whole time and doesn't directly address the situation, when she tries to dissolve it earlier. (see above link). At this point however I really doubted that she was, I was just throwing the option out on the table.
------
Lwerd starts the Phil bandwagon.

http://www.debate.org......
------

Pretty much at this point, No one has decided to read the dispute and every one goes along with the bandwagon lynch and lynches me. Meanwhile me and L's argument continues.
-------

All this proves why L has pretty much given herself up as mafia and why I called her KRF and GW out.

Pretty detailed and easy to follow for all you who don't like to read alot, but what the basic info.
------
3. I am not too detailed as to this information, but apparently last night GhostWriter was on face book being interrogated by the user Vi_veri. Now me and GhostWriter live in the same state and city. Vi_veri found a friend of Ghostwriter, the same as a relative of mine.
------

Now given that we live in both the same state. Same city. Probably very close. How unlikely is it that we may have a friend that's the same? It is in fact very likely. Now I have no information on to how my relative and knows the user GhostWriter in the slightest. However having the same friend as someone on face book isn't too harsh of a load of evidence that the person is essentially the same person.
-----
I am sure my opponent has a bunch more arguments cooked up and ready to present that I may have missed. I think the three of them that I have presented of hers however are her most pressing ones, that I have indeed refuted to the best of my ability. As theLwerd said in the opening round, I have been a prominent member on this site for over a year and would never make another account to up myself, and have offered several different times to do whatever is in my ability to prove my innocence at having one account, and one account only. I stand by this statement, and have thus far.
As of the moment I have nothing further to add and will await my opponent to refute.

But to conclude: I know the probability of anyone believing me is very slight, and I understand this. Me being in your shoes, I would likely notice the strange conveniences as well. All I can say is to try to look at yourself from my point of view, and ask yourself what you yourself would do in the situation of being accused harshly for something you didn't do.

With that said, I rest my case.

-Philosophical.
Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, Phil.

1. ORP MAFIA

Suspicion about GW/Phil being the same person arose when he correctly targeted 4/5 people in one mafia on DP1 of RR's game. All 4 of these people were in GW's mafia; Phil was unable to call out anyone from any other mafia (and there were 3). Anyone who has ever played a mafia game knows the extreme unlikelihood of this happening, and can also ration that I would never be so careless as to reveal nearly my entire mafia within the first 10 pages on DP1.

Phil has given a gigantic explanation as to how he came to his conclusion though much of it is a straight up lie! For a STEP BY STEP explanation of what happened with DIRECT QUOTES from that day phase, I have provided all of that info here: http://www.debate.org...

Now, you'll see that Phil's exact words from R1 were, "Then I ask her why she cared so much about GW and not KRF." In other words, his whole analysis was based on the fact that I did not "care enough" to protect KRF (and that somehow makes the both of us mafia... right. He used terrible logic the whole time). Plus, this is a blatant LIE. On page 5 of that game, a direct quote from me (to Nags) reads, "You've got a point; however, I don't think KRF's comment meant any more than yours did (so I'm defending KRF)... Who would you suggest we lynch and why? Is it still KRF? I'm just asking because I think that's kind of a stretch." In other words, I did indeed defend KRF meaning everything Phil has been saying is complete and utter bullsh!t. Proof: http://www.debate.org...

2. FACEBOOK

GW admitted that she lied on DDO about her age, name and profile picture. What incentive did GW have to lie about all of the above while registering? It's more likely that Phil just could not borrow someone's Facebook with those credentials in time when we asked GW to prove via Facebook that she was someone =/= Phil. GW used the Facebook account of Kim Cox of Salt Lake City, UT. She is a 40+ year old paralegal who is Facebook friends (and comments) with a user known as Destiny Gillies: http://i41.tinypic.com... .

Destiny Gillies is Facebook friends and RELATED TO none other than Connor Gillies, a.k.a. Philosophical: http://i41.tinypic.com... . Of course Phil claimed to have "no idea" who Kim Cox is lol. We can assume that for a 12 y/o and 40 y/o to be Facebook friends that they're related. Phil admits that he's related to Destiny meaning he's probably related to Kim Cox too.

Now, Phil will tell you that this is a "coincidence" but the odds of this obviously suggest otherwise! What are the odds that this mutual friend of his relative's (with a giant age gap) is the person HE IS ACCUSED OF BEING ON DEBATE.ORG? This whole point alone is evidence enough that Phil is lying though I have several more contentions for your own amusement. Moreover, Phil and GW have ANOTHER friend in common: Manola Cox. Obviously he's lying about having no idea who KC is. Also, Kim Cox has mysteriously chosen to delete Vi from her Facebook friends and GW is MIA.

3. BACK TO BACK SIGN-ONS

Since it was becoming increasingly obvious to many members that GW and Phil were the same person, I wanted to pay close attention to the times the 2 of them signed on. Not surprisingly, GW is ONLY active on DDO when she is playing in mafia games -- Puck attests to this here: http://www.debate.org... . Additionally, several site members have watched both accounts sign on back to back; Rezz even said he thought "everyone in the community already knew" that GW and Phil were the same person: http://www.debate.org... . Clearly, this suspicion has been widespread for quite some time making it reasonable to assume that people WERE watching the accounts (and noticing patterns).

The only thing Phil has to contest this accusation is him saying, "That's not true." However, there are several eye witnesses who can say otherwise. In other words, it's many people's word against 1. Further, I can take a screen shot of my PM to a site member (if necessary) of times where we were acknowledging the back to back switching of Phil and GW. Additionally, I can offer proof of Phil and GW signing on back to back on more than 1 occasion by posting a screen shot of them accepting their mafia roles in Vi's game back to back (Phil @ 7:25 / GW @ 7:28) Proof: http://tinypic.com... / http://tinypic.com...

4. MORE MAFIA CHEATING

Alex Hanson mentioned that GW started complaining about the integrity of his game only after the user philosphical found out that he was going to die in the game. Why would a 40+ year old woman feel such contempt at this silly game? And why only after Phil was going to die? Also, in Vi's game Phil was the cop and received information that Ragnar was guilty; however, he was silenced. Because he could not talk during the day phase, he changed his avatar to be the word 'voice' crossed out, and had his alter-ego GW post and call out Ragnar... despite the fact that GhostWriter didn't replace someone until the night before, meaning she wouldn't have known that Phil's intention was to investigate RR anyway.

GW frequently posts that she doesn't like reading through entire day phases so what are the odds that she coincidentally knew who Phil was going to investigate? She also seemed to know that Phil was silenced. She pointed out in the DP thread, "Phil's online..." implying that she was going to note the fact that he was online yet probably silenced. In other words, he was going to cheat by revealing his cop investigation and condition using GW. Plus, it was when GW mentioned, "He's online" that I noticed the accounts switching back and forth (one time of many).

5. HIS MISTAKE

In noting that Phil and GW were signing on back to back a lot over a few minute period, Vi decided to experiment by asking GhostWriter why she did not vote for herself in her writer's debate with Phil. Obviously debating with Phil was the first debate that GW ever did on this site (and only 1 of 3 in 6 months -- the other debates were jokey debates -- clearly something a grown 40 year old woman would do... right). PHIL responded with, "Because I forfeited." However, PHIL DID NOT FORFEIT - GHOSTWRITER FORFEITED. In other words, he forgot which account he was using and posted as the wrong person. Here's proof (Comments Section) : http://www.debate.org...

6. SPELLING/GRAMMAR

Phil uses horrible spelling and grammar; he apparently does not understand the the difference between "your" and "you're." GhostWriter - though she is apparently some brilliant lawyer - seemingly has the same problem. I have screen shots of both Phil and GW making this error though I won't post it due to a lack of character space (I will if requested). Further, both Phil and GW write her name out as two separate words (ghost writer) which I find to be an odd coincidence. Another thing to note is that this grown woman apparently writes using phrases like "kk" and saying "sweet" (as in cool) while talking to Vi; however, the Facebook account we were given depicts the real Kim Cox as having far from such a juvenile vernacular. Even Nags has noted the fact that phil and GW have near identical typing styles as well: http://www.debate.org...

7. IP INFO

GhostWriter signed on to DDO Fans using the IP address 69.171.174.67 which is a Cricket Wireless ISP. Cricket works in correspondence with Metropcs and Sprint Nextel. Guess what kind of phone Phil has? Answer: Sprint Nextel. Proof (from the still shot of him making a video with his phone) -- http://img441.imageshack.us...

CONCLUSION: I'm out of character space, but I'll say that the number of "coincidences" is far too damning to mount up to "coincidences!"
philosphical

Con

Lwerd, your argument is very endearing, however, I am inclined to say that it is all false.

1. ORP MAFIA

The Lwerd claims that I had called out 4/5 people from her this mafia game. However this is untrue. I called out three, based on a mistake Lwerd made in revealing them. As you can read in the evidence provided above, theLwerd unusually protects a player who at the time was new to the game. Seemingly almost right after she said we should lynch off nooby players because they are un-beneficial to the town anyway, so we wouldn't be losing much. Now when I called her out for it, she said she was also suspicious of KRF. Which is fine. However randomly during another argument she brings up how I was persecuting GW and KRF and tried protecting both. This is where I caught that KRF must be affiliated with them, because she had been a jumping bean between protecting the two of them, even when I didn't accuse KRF, as theLwerd got confused and thought I did. I only said Vi_veri was a plausible mafia at one point in the game. I never officially called her out, ad Lwerd would have you believe. The fact that she actually did turn out mafia is quite hilarious.

2. FACEBOOK
Now seeing as this debate is between you and me, I cannot relay to you GW's intentions in lying about her age and name on DDO. I would ask you please to only give evidence that I to my best knowledge can argue. Now again, as said above, me and GW both live in Utah. The fact that I happen to know the same friend as GW, when we both live in the same city is hardly evidence at all. Don't ask me why or how destiny knows GW either, for I am not privy to that information. Me and destiny don't exactly have a communacitave relationship, nor do I with most of my family, so I am dis-closed to that information. However, my previous knowledge would tell me that she sends friend requests to many people, some of who she may not even know. BTW she's fifteen, not twelve.
I have no relations to kim Cox, nor have I ever met her.

3. BACK TO BACK SIGN-ONS
This point has already been refuted. The only time I get on and off repeatedly from DDO is when I am using my cell phone which constantly makes me log off before I post a second time. I have provided video evidence of this in the forums, and still, theLwerd fails to understand. Let us also note that the only time I use my cell phone is during school, which are the only time that the back to back behavior has been noticed. Whenever I have been on my home computer, there has been times when GW has even been on at the SAME time as me. So If I am GW, how am I logging on with both accounts at the same time?
Now lets look at the role confirmations pics. These are literally right after Vi_veri sent out the Pm's! Also, I was on-line at this time when GW PM'ed you. I was for about 20 minutes after confirming my role without logging off. In order to your screen shots to have worked, they would have required that you post screen shots of me being on and off line while she is online. So in other words, this argument fails.

4. MORE MAFIA CHEATING

As said above, this argument pertains to evidence that I am not privy to. I have no information as to what was said between Alex hanson and GW, thus cannot provide explanation to this point. However, someone else dis-agreeing with a retarded game hardly makes me the same person.
Yes I did receive information that Ragnar Rahl was guilty in the mafia game. My avatar has absolutely nothing to do with me being silenced! My avatar with "voice" being crossed out has NOTHING to do with the mafia game, and I find it extremely funny that you correlated the two together. My avatar is a symbolism to how the people don't get a voice voice or say in how things will or won't be, as long as the superior power believes differently. And if it did have anything to do with the mafia game, why would I have kept it the same? I have been unfairly booted from the game. How would me keeping the same avatar benefit me? Again, evidence fail. And as to the GW asking me to post saying I was online, contradicts your earlier argument that we are on at different times. If I was online at the same time then how could I have been her? And I don't ever remember seeing in that forum that GW is implying I am silenced. You have entirely made that up.

5. HIS MISTAKE

This wasn't a mistake. I was quite peeved at GW forfeiting a writers debate with me, and when vi asked why GW didn't vote for herself, I gave her the obvious answer in misquotation. Of course she didn't vote for herself because if she had that would have been cheating, seeing as she quit that debate. Me making fun of her was not a mistake.

6. Spelling and grammar

I don't have spelling and grammar issues. I just type quickly and don't bother to use spell check. There are many members who do the EXACT same thing. Even you have multiple times. If you wish I will sift through forums and find the same spelling and mistyping errors that you have, or other members have. This is also a fail argument. And alot of people use slang such as cool and sweet. Dumb point.

7. IP info.
This is possibly the worst argument yet. My cell phone uses sprint service, and has nothing to do with cricket. All of my apps are sprint, all of my pictures go to sprint pics, all my music is from sprint, etc. I will a post pic link below to prove this.

[IMG]http://i41.tinypic.com...[/IMG]

I conclude that I have successfully refuted all of my opponents points. My opponent claims that all this "evidence" is factual proof. However upon inspection, you all will find that they essentially boil down to theories and coincidences. Again, I am a worthy member of this site and have been for over a year. I would never create another account and infringe upon the rights of my fellow debaters.
With that said, I shall await for my opponents second argument, and the finisher of this debate.

-philosphical.
Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Pro

=========
1. ORP Mafia
=========

Con is completely LYING about everything that went on during that game. Fortunately, I have provided a link in the last round with a step-by-step analysis and direct quotes and links to the game. Moreover, Con continues to blatantly lie when he says he only called out 3/5 of my mafia within several pages on DP1 (Myself, KRF and Ghostwriter, of course). He indeed called out a 4th: Vi_Veri. In a recent forum, Phil says he called her out because she "defended me" though I have proven that she only made *2* posts prior to him calling her out, and she did not defend me in any one of those posts! The only thing she said about me was, "I wonder what Lwerd's economics major might develop into - who knows? I'm sure Nags will get us some investigative powers."

Ladies and gentlemen, in no way, shape or form was that defending me so wtf is Phil talking about? After that, Vi said Phil was being paranoid... But so did Cody (on pg. 14), pcmbrown (on pg. 15), Bellum (on pg. 16), wonderwoman (on pg. 19)... Yet despite all of these people agreeing with me and even voting to lynch Phil, he claims that Vi saying "I wonder what Lwerd's major will do" is defending me and thus CONFIRMING to the point of him PROMISING that we're all mafia. Again, despite all of these people agreeing with me he says, "Guys please believe me... I can guarantee you that their role will show up as mafia."

So as you can see, he used bad logic and I refuted all of it several times. He also knew who 4/5 of my mafia was randomly within a few pages on DP1 to the point that he could GUARANTEE all of our guilt, and he didn't know anyone else in any other mafia... despite the fact that my mafia didn't "agree with me" and several other people did. Mhm. Phil is a liar but for more links and evidence: http://www.debate.org...

========
2. Facebook
========

GW lied about her name, age and photo while registering for DDO (to the point of getting a fake pic instead of having a non-photo avatar) and as a 40+ year old claims that she randomly decided to friend Destiny Gillies despite not knowing who this 15 y/o girl is and being at least 25 years older than her. Does that sound normal to you? Kim Cox has also written and commented on Destiny's pictures, saying things like she looked cute and pretty (Ghostwriter admits this -- we have screen shots of it anyway). Once again, this is not normal. Clearly they are related thus implying that GW is also related to Phil. Further, Phil has ignored my comment about them having OTHER friends in common too, such as Manola Cox. So how can Phil have "no idea" who Kim Cox is despite them having several mutual friends in common including 2 relatives?!

Once again, this can not be chalked up to a coincidence. Ladies and gents, what are the odds that your RELATIVES are Facebook friends with random people from DDO? And what about the age gap? And the comments? Phil saying they live in the same town is yet another convenience. Further, there are more than 180,000 people in that town so that makes the odds even LOWER (than, say, a small town of 2,000 where everyone might know each other or have mutual friends). In short, the odds of this "coincidence" are SO LOW that it cannot be considered a coincidence!

Some of their (Facebook) friends in common: Destiny Gillies and Manola Cox (relatives), Ashley Vogelpohl, Jovenae Eggen... The odds suggest this obviously CAN NOT BE A COINCIDENCE WHEN "GHOSTWRITER" KIM COX ONLY HAS (4 friends in common with Phil, including 2 definite relatives) 97 FRIENDS TO BEGIN WITH! Plus! Phil is once again lying about being from the same town as Kim. Both Kim and Manola Cox are from OREGON according to their Facebook (once again, I have screen shots of all this) so there goes his point about obviously having multiple friends being from the same area and all. Phil is from UT; these ladies are from OR. Clearly Phil knows Kim Cox in real life and borrowed her Facebook to pose as Ghostwriter.

=================
Re: Back to Back Sign Ons
=================

Phil says about both him and GW accepting their role claims back to back (with photo evidence), "These are literally right after Vi_veri sent out the Pm's!" Once again, this is a lie. Just scroll up to look at the photos and notice that this happened 2+ hours after Vi had sent out the roles. Moreover, here is even more photo evidence of me noticing back to back sign-ons of Phil and GW before this controversy even came to light: http://tinypic.com... . What incentive would I have to make this up?

============
Re: Mafia Cheating
============

Phil notes, "And as to the GW asking me to post saying I was online, contradicts your earlier argument that we are on at different times. If I was online at the same time then how could I have been her?" No. What I said was that this was (one time of many) when I noticed you both signing on back to back. She said, "Look - Phil's online" so I looked at your page, it said "Online 2 minutes ago" and then I refreshed; it said you were on. I went back to GW's page and it said she was "offline 1 minute ago."

This happened multiple times over a few minute period. I have already provided photo proof of me noticing this, as well as the testimonies from several site users who noticed this happening at the same time (Askbob, Vi, etc.) -- this is when Vi asked that question to in which you mistakenly responded as GW -- and again we have all of those other members I mentioned (Nags, Rezz, Alex, DontBeRacist, xxdarkxx and Puck) who also agree that they have noticed strange patterns and coincidences. Vi believes as mod based on what happened to your role and character in the game that you and GW are the same person. The user known as Puck has also pointed out that since playing mafia, the only games that GW didn't play in were games that you were absent from as well.

========
Re: Mistake
========

Phil says, "When vi asked why GW didn't vote for herself, I gave her the obvious answer in misquotation." No. This is a lie. Look back at the link I provided in the last round; there was no QUOTATION anywhere. Phil wasn't doing any quoiting. He simply said, "Because I forfeited." He did not copy and paste anything to "misquote."

=====
Re: S/G
=====

In addition to the examples from last round, there's more. GW the brilliant paralegal doesn't understand compound words just as Phil doesn't (and other basic 1st grade grammar). For instance, GW says things like "dis-appointed" while Phil writes words like "dis-order." Proof: http://www.debate.org... / http://www.debate.org... . They both also write "scimmed" instead of skimmed, but who's counting? Plus, Phil says "a lot of people use phrases like 'kk' while typing" but do lawyers in their 40s? Or are they a bit more professional? Obviously the latter; plus we have screen shots of the real Kim Cox talking on Facebook in a much more professional and mature manner than Ghostwriter does here on DDO, or how Phil talked to Vi while pretending to be Kim.

=======
Re: IP Info
=======

Phil writes, "
"My cell phone uses sprint service, and has nothing to do with cricket." Obviously he completely ignored my point from the last round: Cricket covers users with agreements from Metropcs and >>>> Sprint Nextel<<<< according to the Wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Again, Phil has a Sprint Nextel.

=======
Conclusion
=======

There are FAR too many coincidences here. Any one of those can be seen as a coincidence at face value; however, when viewed at as a group the evidence becomes overwhelming (especially the Facebook!). Users in the other forums have all commented giving further reasoning and analysis but once again I'm out of characters. Please extend all of my arguments from the previous round.
philosphical

Con

Vi, Lwerd, Askbob, I commend you for your outstanding research. You are all indeed right. However to be fair, GhostWriter in fact at first started out as my mother who created the account, but soon got bored and stopped using it. And the PoeJoe comment was from my mother as well, on one of the few times she does use her account. The evidence against me is too overwhelming to continue to refute. I did use my mothers DDO profile to vote on debates, and to participate in mafia games. I am also the ex user known as foshizzle, and part of the CWO, and affiliated with none other than joshander. I am a slimy selfish scumball. But it is the internet after all, so I'm not too worried. Thanks for the fun time everyone on DDO.

However, I still should tell you that my cell phone actually is sprint, and connected to sprint only, and that the cricket wireless really is its own seperate ISP.

Please make a DDOF article about me and put me among your historical DDO criminals. I enjoy the attention.
I'm actually pretty surprised the mod or anyone else didn't catch on to this the whole six months it's been going on.

With that, all I have to say is, "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!"
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lamza61 6 years ago
Lamza61
Aww man, I was expecting Con to be a completely different person defending Philosphical.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
This is the most epic defeat of a DDO user ever.
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
wat?
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
PoeJoe's a vote bomber!
Posted by barrybater 7 years ago
barrybater
Good stuff!
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Nicely done. :)
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
When a profile states "is no longer active," that means that the user chose to close the account. A notice that states "has been closed" means that Phil banned the account.
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
philosophical's account is no longer active, i think theLwerd actually got the attention of the admins
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
They're called cougars, PBJ.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Not the one I was looking for, but they'll do, I guess.
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by BigMac 7 years ago
BigMac
DaniellephilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
DaniellephilosphicalTied
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 
Vote Placed by pbplk58 7 years ago
pbplk58
DaniellephilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by phoenixash 7 years ago
phoenixash
DaniellephilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by russianmaster999 7 years ago
russianmaster999
DaniellephilosphicalTied
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 
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
DaniellephilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
DaniellephilosphicalTied
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 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
DaniellephilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
DaniellephilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
DaniellephilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70