The Instigator
Smurfy
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Oromagi
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

User Mikal is still cheating: I will present logical and circumstantial evidence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Oromagi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,358 times Debate No: 36875
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

Smurfy

Pro

You might recall my last debate on Mikal:

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

I won that debate 10 - 3 showing that a user account "inductivelogic" always voted for him. The 3 points in Mikals favor were given by a vote from Mikal himself.

Now that I exposed one of his alt or "friends" accounts as inductivelogic claims, Mikal has begun to create new ones. Two that I have identified with highly circumstantial evidence: Chapule and mrsatan.

First, let me present the evidence of his last alt or "friends" account: inductivelogic always votes for Mikal in his debates.

























Mrsatan has also always voted in favor of Mikal in his debates















user Chapule always votes in favor of Mikal in his debates:













None of these users accept comments: (mikal, inductive, mrsatan, chapule)









Very quick involvement from "Chapule" with Mikals debates:





Account info: Notice the time when each account joined is very similar. Mrsatan joined 2 months ago (not far from the 1 month when Mikal joined - but this could be his first account he chose not to use). User inductivelogic, Chapule, and Mikal have all joined 1 month ago. Also notice Inductivelogic has ceased all account activity as of 3 weeks ago.









Given these similarities, and the fact that inductivelogic, mrsatan, and chapule vote in Mikals favor 100% of the time, I have shown significant circumstantial evidence that Mikal is cheating by creating alternate voting accounts.

Also note that in my last debate, when Inductivelogic was always voting for Mikal, the only votes that the account voted on were Mikals. He has since changed that pattern and Inductivelogic began voting in different debates to not make this pattern of voting for Mikal as obvious. His other alts have followed suit and their votes make up about 50% debates from Mikal. It is interesting that none of these accounts accept comments. I understand why.

I believe I have given reasonable circumstantial evidence to prove that Mikal has alternate voting accounts.

NOTE* All of this information is correct as of Wednesday, August 21 at 12:03AM
Oromagi

Con

Thanks for the opportunity, Pro.

I will accept this debate, reasoning that if I win I will have defended the honor of 4 fellow debaters who are also active voters, which may serve in my prejudicial favor in future debates. If I am proven wrong, then at least I have taken up cause with an active vote bomber, which might also prove useful in future debates.

Let us concede that Pro has offered a large amount of "highly circumstantial" (pro's words) documentation. The burden on Pro is to prove that there is no other possible explanation for users to consistently vote for Mikal. I can think of a few possible scenarios-

1). User Mikal is an excellent debater.

I have only reviewed a handful of Mikal's debates, but I am satisfied that Mikal is a fine debater. He uses a positive, declarative prose style and is careful about clarity of diction. He is clearly very familiar with the principles of informal logic and argue against fallacies to good effect. His use of bold type and white space demonstrate the outline of his argument to improve reader reference.

2) Mikal is socially active and is enjoying the prejudicial benefits of being friendly

In fact, Mikal has already noted that inductivelogic is a personal friend in the comments section of the debate you cite and advises that he is active on multiple debate sites. Although friendship is a bad reason to take sides in a debate, social bias is inevitable and a site like this is in no position to prevent bias.

3) Mikal is an active voter, and active voters tend to vote in favor of other active voters, reasoning it favors their chances in future debates.

Any combination of these factors might account for the patterns you document and disprove actual account fraud.

Additionally, there is a process for reporting suspected vote fraud. Either Pro has not reported these suspicions (which would argue against Pro's own confidence in the argument) or Pro has reported and his appeals have been dismissed. Either way, Pro's appeal to the masses distorts the process and smacks of sour grapes.

I won't try to match Pro's fortitude with cut & paste, but a cursory review of debates by all four of the accused shows evidence of appreciable differences in prose style, although all of the users in question are able debaters.

In short, Pro has merely documented a circumstance without offering any tangible evidence that Mikal enjoys the advantage of multiple accounts. Since there are many possible explanations, including a legal degree of favoritism, that might account for this circumstance without fraud, Pro's argument has been shown to be unproven.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
What the hell. I am NEVER included into these debates :( First it was inductive, now mrsatan and chapule. WHY CAN'T I HAVE SOME LOVE TOO?!
Posted by Oromagi 3 years ago
Oromagi
Smurfy's account has been deactivated.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I still wish I knew this guys real account lol. Every time I see this it will always tickle my brain a little.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
That's funny, glad airmax checked into it though, so I can still be considered me. As for being friends with Mikal, I don't know him personally. I do, however, think he's an excellent debater. I decided that when we debated morality, and since then he has been on my friends list. He messages me if he feels he's been votebombed, and asks me to take a look, and if I agree, I counter it. Don't see any reason this should be a problem.

As for my votes themselves, I read the entirety of every debate I vote on, even if I'm countering a votebomb, and I vote for whoever I feel debated better. I didn't give a single vote to Mikal that he didn't deserve, and I sincerely doubt Smurphy, or anyone else for that matter, could come anywhere near showing that I did.

And that bit about not accepting comments, if someone wants to say something to me they can message me. Funny enough though, Smurfy, you're not accepting comments either. Of course, whether or not you're account is an alt, this is most likely because the default for profile comments is to not accept them.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Smells fishy to me, But Mikal is a good debater , but that doesn't mean he isn't able to cheat. All Airmax can do is check to see if the multiple users are using the same internet or something like that, he can not know for sure, but you just know all those people are going to vote for Mikal, on almost every debate....It stinks.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Smells fishy to me, But Mikal is a good debater , but that doesn't mean he isn't able to cheat. All Airmax can do is check to see if the multiple users are using the same internet or something like that, he can not know for sure, but you just know all those people are going to vote for Mikal, on almost every debate....It stinks.
Posted by MilkyChocolate 3 years ago
MilkyChocolate
A loser? I'm not the one crying over the fact that he's been cheated on a site that can be accessed by anyone with an internet access. Get over it, things like this happen on a daily basis. Why don't you debate in real life if you're such a tough guy, huh?
Posted by Oromagi 3 years ago
Oromagi
As con in the debate, I am in agreement with Smurfy regarding voters. The named users would demonstrate fairness by refraining from voting in this case. ( probably didn't even need saying).
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Which also shows in the name I might add

"Smurfy"

In gaming terms this often refers to second account or second identity.

Commonly used in League of legends or Call of Duty. Often people will say this is my "smurf" account. I am quite sure air-max could confirm this as well lol.

Again thanks for making me laugh, and have fun with outcome.

Random Word
2. smurf
A (usually) experienced gamer posing as a newbie under an alternate name.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...
Posted by Smurfy 3 years ago
Smurfy
My claim and entitled debate is that there is circumstantial evidence that you are cheating. Deciding on whether or not those votes came from an alt or friendly accounts is a logical deduction I made based on this evidence - like the logical deduction you made that this is not my main account. Criticism of the time I spent creating this debate is a logical fallacy - Ad Hominem.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
SmurfyOromagiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Not moved in personal beliefs to either side of this issue... However I still suspect Smurfy to be someone's alt. I'll be voting on the first part of the resolution. ARGUMENTS: First the resolution is somewhat loaded... Without at least a second round of the debate, pro could not defend any of his points, or attack any of con's; doing such a setup gave con a huge edge which con successfully used (as much as two of con's points, would not take things out of the realm of cheating; no one pointed such out inside the debate). SOURCES: Hands down pro was the only one with evidence, and a lot of evidence at that.
Vote Placed by orangemayhem 3 years ago
orangemayhem
SmurfyOromagiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins sources for providing a ton of them (though it should be noted that he didn't actually link to them). Conduct to Con, because Pro created a one-round debate (thus guaranteeing that these issues would not be thrashed out in full) and also because he attempted to dictate who should be allowed to vote on the debate. S/G was pretty equal. Arguments to Con: he was able to demonstrate that Pro could not prove that any foul play was going on by providing three possible and plausible - albeit (possibly) unlikely - reasons why these actions could be taking place in a fair manner. I've reported this debate, so that the relevant authorities get a hold of these accusations, and I have quite a few suspicions about Smurfy's intentions and authenticity.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
SmurfyOromagiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe Smurfy, And I think Mikal is cheating. Also It would be good for Mikal to win a debate without the aid of his friends, who have been shown to vote with a bias. But wait even Pro seems to be suspect of creating accounts, how on earth can his first debate be based on Mikahl cheating, also no opinions, votes, or forum posts, for smurfy either, it's as if another user has created an account solely for the purpose of accusing Mikahl, I'm withdrawing my vote, simply because this whole thing is messy. For all I know, they could all be the same person, including smurfy. Joke, I know Mikhal isn't everybody, but it just dawned on me, maybe smurfy is the multiple user.
Vote Placed by Wnope 3 years ago
Wnope
SmurfyOromagiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: If the topic had been "I will present circumstantial evidence" then this would be a slam dunk. But the word "logic" is there and none of this goes past circumstantial. "Logical evidence" would be something along the lines of two users having the same IP when at least one has said he has no siblings on the site. The burden of proof has not been fulfilled.