The Instigator
Nitpelk
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

beem0r is a dreamer

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,875 times Debate No: 4013
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (26)
Votes (12)

 

Nitpelk

Pro

After all, you'd have to dream to be able to deny the obvious truth that beem0r, kleptin, yraelz, logicalmaster, and sportsguru are the same person.

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

After having made this comment as well as received several harrassing emails from beem0r and his co-conspirators, I cannot help that they have pushed me into combat. In this debate, I not only intend to clear my good name through exposing this group as the frauds they are, but I will give the proof needed to lock them away and throw away the key. Debate.org cannot suffer another minute under their tyranny. As a hunter for peace as well as the eternal husband of justice, I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS ANY LONGER.

The previous debate here was just a warm up to let the "Legion of Dumb" know that someone was onto them. But in this debate, I will unleash my full fury. If beem0r gets more than 4 votes in this debate after I thoroughly destroy him, this will prove beyond the notion of a doubt that he has other accounts.

#1. beem0r confesses to being a troll and having multiple accounts. See this comment section for proof: http://www.debate.org...

I also think this account belongs to beem0r due to the lack of usage, the fact that it was created during the time of that debate, and that it's only comment has been made on that debate: http://www.debate.org... , but I'm not sure.

#2. beem0r happens to know everything the other accounts do and think on this site. Take this comment section for example:

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

He just HAPPENS to KNOW what logicalmaster said in some other unrelated comment section on this site. He even KNEW WHEN he said it. Even googling that comment, EVEN I have trouble finding what LM said.

And look at this comment: http://www.debate.org...

Kleptin makes a joke which ONLY him and beem0r happen to understand. Isn't that a little odd? Also notice how kleptin defends beem0r religiously when someone else uses mere playful humor. To top it off, Kleptin gets offended when he isn't even the one being "attacked." Very strange.

#3. kleptin confesses to having another account:

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

In the comment section of this debate Kleptin quite clearly states, "Atwinraven is one of my other accounts." This implies that Kleptin has more than two accounts. He also casually admits to it here: http://www.debate.org... This was done to throw people off, but it's pretty apparent that he does possess numerous accounts.

#4. Kleptin is omnipresent?

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

This debate was already two or three pages behind the most current debates, and yet Kleptin conveniently comes out of nowhere to agree with LogicalMaster when he is (rightfully) being attacked for butting into someone else's debate.

#5. Yraelz was beaten like a dog in this debate.

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

If they weren't the same person, he should have had the advantage and should have easily won.

Need more proof? Read this debate: http://www.debate.org...

And since this is two round, I'm more than ready to rebutt the lies and foolish responses made in the previous debate. Have at thee.
beem0r

Con

I could do this one of two ways. First, I could attack every meaningful statement my opponent made. Second, I could simply make an entirely separate case, showing how inconceivable it is that me, Kleptin, Yraelz, L-M, and SportsGuru are all the same person. I'll just respond to the numbered points quickly and then make my own case.

=====
Quote
=====
"After having made this comment as well as received several harrassing emails from beem0r and his co-conspirators, I cannot help that they have pushed me into combat."

=====
Response to Quote
=====
The only way for me or any of my 'co-conspirators' to email you is if you gave us your email address. Since email addresses are not displayed anywhere on debate.org and you have left no comments with your email address, it would be impossible for me or other users to know your email address.

=====
Response to Point #1
=====
I trolled my own account [by voting against myself on all my debates] and got a friend to do the same. This does not show that I have multiple accounts.

=====
Response to Point #2
=====
Please be more specific as to what you are talking about. None of my comments on that debate show a great level of knowledge of what other accounts are doing.

=====
Response to Point #3
=====
Kleptin confessed jokingly to having an extra account, due to the former rumors. At least I assume it was jokingly. It may not have been. However, Kleptin having a second account would not make it likely that me, Yraelz, L-M, and SportsGuru are all him.

=====
Response to Point #4
=====
There were a few comments between the post Kleptin was responding to and Kleptin's post. There were also several comments on the debate shortly after by sadolite, who must have found it by browsing debates. Kleptin could just as easily have found it as sadolite did.

=====
Response to Point #5
=====
FalseReality won based on a retarded burden of proof. He wanted Yraelz to prove 100% that they were not the same person. The audience apparently bought this burden of proof, and many voted against Yraelz.
Also, just because someone wins a debate does not mean they are right, and someone who loses a debate is not necessarily wrong.

And the person who debated Nitpelk in his previous debate properly addressed all of his claims therein, so I won't bother re-rebutting those.

Now that I've responded to the so-called points, I'll make it blatantly obvious that we are not the same person.

=====
#1: LACK OF MOTIVE
=====
What motive could we possibly have for doing this? IT cannot be simply to vote for ourselves on multiple accounts, since inactive accounts work just as well for that. Take the account my opponent posted a link to earlier:
http://www.debate.org...

THAT looks like a mule account. However, it is inconceivable that someone would waste the vast amount of hours that have likely been put into each of these accounts just to get an extra vote.

I ask my opponent, what would our motive possibly be? To just confuse people? This seems like a rather time-consuming way to accomplish that. Looking at the amount of time regularly put into each of these accounts, it makes next to no sense to assume that these accounts are the property of one individual. However, it makes a startling amount of sense to assume that each one of these accounts is owned by a separate person, each who simply enjoy debating. Couple this with the fact that my opponent has given no real reason that merits believing that we are all the same person, and it's astonishing that we're even debating this.

=====
#2: Implausibility
=====
On average, I spend at least 90-120 minutes on a debate. I would assume that many of the others spend much more time, since they seem to use a lot more research than I do.
I have had 67 debates. L-M has had 59. Yraelz has had 89. Kleptin has had 78. SportsGuru has had 11.
This totals to an astoundingly high number of debates. ALONE, me, L-M, Yraelz, and Kleptin are 4 of the debaters with the highest number of debates. To claim that we're all the same debater is ridiculous, and such a ridiculous claim requires a good amount of warranting, which my opponent has failed to provide.

Also, take a look at this debate:
http://www.debate.org...
I haven't had any more than 4 votes the entire time. My opponent got massacred, and is winning [due to the people who are voting against me on my debates]. If I had 4 alternate accounts, you better believe I'd have at least 5 votes. At the time of posting, it is 5-4 against me on that debate.

Also, consider all the debates between the people my opponent claims to be the same person. These are some of the longest debates [my debates with them usually are 8000 chars per round]. Why would the same person, a person who clearly enjoys ACTUALLY debating, spend that much time FAUX debating? It's implausible.

Also, consider the fact that we are often online at the same time. Do we have multiple computers, and we log in with different accounts on different ones just to trick people? It is far more reasonable from this to assume that we are in fact different people.
At the time of writing this, myself and SportsGuru are the only ones named who are online, but I can attest and you can see for yourself that it is often that many of us are online at once.

We would have to go through a great deal of trouble to make it seem like we're all the same people. We would be devoting the majority of our life to this site, and for what? My opponent has not given any reason to think that we are all the same person.

Also, we have disagreed with each other outside of debate.org. Those who view the news on the frontpage will know that there is a debate.org tournament, organized via facebook. Here's the link, if you're too busy to click it yourself.
http://www.facebook.com...

The specific thread I'm talking about is here:
http://www.facebook.com...

He has 69 friends on facebook, I have 73. And we have no friends in common. This is because he is in a completely different state than I am. He has one friend in NC, and that's me. And he's my only friend in Montana.

Since I'm not Yraelz, I can't say that he'll friend you so you can see his list of friends. However, I would be willing to accept any friend request you send me, so you might see that my friends are decidedly not from Montana. The discussion I posted a link to clearly shows who I am, so feel free to send an invite.

It boils down to this, ladies and gents. I have shown that my opponent's claim is quite remarkable - he claims that me, Yraelz, L-M, Kleptin, and SportsGuru are all the same person. An extraordinary claim indeed, especially when you consider how little sense it makes, with a lack of motive and the sheer implausibility of the thing. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence to suport it, and my opponent hasn't provided evidence at all. Thus, he does not have a justified case.
Debate Round No. 1
Nitpelk

Pro

I'm gonna go down Kleptin's entire case and lable each point numerically.

#1. You guys could have easily hacked into debate.org's database. So it's not impossible as you suggest.

#2. Aha. You admit to being a troll and that's all that matters. This point goes to me. And as for multiple accounts, how do we know this friend of your exist? The only way you can prove that you and him are not the same person is by posting at the same time.

#3. You figured it out below in the comment and had one of your other accounts do it so no one would get suspicious, but I'm two steps ahead of you.

#4. Did you see a smiley face? The only way you could know it was jokingly would be if you were in fact Kleptin. This point ought to be taken as a confession and prove of my argument. And Kleptin having a second account combined to the fact that he has admitted to being logical master or yraelz on multiple occassions is detrimental to your argument.

#5. Why are you avoiding my point? My point is that if Yraelz were not really you and the others, he should have been able to produce 100% evidence. The fact that someone was able to win such a debate helps my case tremendously.

#6. And I addressed all of the other guy's points in the comment section, so you lose this point.

#7. There is a good motivation. In using these numerous accounts and debates, you are able to fool the voters in general, thus there is less suspicion that you are the same person. The advantage this gives you is that you have the opportunity to control the outcome of MOST of the debates on debate.org. And naturally, when people see a large amount of votes for one person, the bandwagon effect initiates, and they all vote for the side with the largest amount of votes. So essentially, the advantage is control over the debates of debate.org. Twas a brilliant scheme, but it was your cockiness that foiled your plan.

#8. All this would seem true if you truly had a life outside of debate.org, but do you? Like false reality said in the other debater, if you're retired and basically have nothing better to do, then spending 100 hours a week on a website such as this is easy to comprehend.

#9. Lie. You have 6 votes. Just what are you trying to pull?

#10. See #8.

#11. Easy to do if you use multiple internet services. Using Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Safari alone will allow you to use three accounts at the same time. Since there are hundreds of Internet Services, this also shows that it could work. Plus, you could also go to library and use multiple. finally, you could very well be rich. This would explain why you have so much free time from work or that you're retired.

#12. Disagreeing with each other is simply an act to fool other people. I wouldn't be surprised if you set up those phony arguments in advance.

#13. If Yraelz is added to beem0rs friends list, this is simply more evidence that they are the same person.

#14. How often do you even use facebook? People will let some random stranger on their friends list without hesitation. In fact, on my facebook account, I have over 300 friends, and I only know like 10 of those people.

#15. The extrodinary claim remark comes from David Hume, and he is dead wrong about it. Extrodinary is subjective. Whether or not anything is considered extrodinary is up to opinion and nothing more. Opnions have no place in this argument and that is all this dreamer known as beem0r can produce.

For all 15 of these reasons, I win this debate.
beem0r

Con

Numerical response mode, activate!

====
Response to point #1
====
My opponent suggests that Klep/Me/Yraelz/LM/SG hacked into the debate.org server to get his email address, to send him emails. Yes, this is a possiblity as far as you, the audience is concerned. However, my opponent has failed to give you proper reason to believe that we in fact did ever send him harrassing emails. Why would we do such a thing? My opponent gives you a possiblity that requires something very implausible - that we hacked the debate.org database. Like most of his points, he fails to give us positive reason to believe his claims, as he simply suggests possibilities.

====
Response to point #2
====
I'm not a troll usually, I simply admit that I trolled myself. Either way, this has no bearing on whether or not I have all 5 of the accounts my opponent claims I do.

====
Response to point #3
====
My opponent fails to make a point with this point. At least any point I can even remotely detect.

====
Response to point #4
====
As I said, I don't even know if it was jokingly, I can only assume, since that makes the most sense given the context. I SPECIFICALLY said that I was not sure whether he was joking.

====
Response to point #5
====
How would he have produced 100% evidence? That's not possible over the internet. Also, even if Yraelz, Klep, and L-M are the same person [which I doubt], this does nothing to show that I am another of their accounts. This point once again fails to affirm the point my opponent wants to make.

====
Response to point #6
====
I don't lose this point. My opponent lost that other debate; his points were utterly invalid and irrelevant, just like they are in this debate. The other guy has no burden to respond to whatever things my opponent said in the comment section.
Also, if he wanted the points to count in this debate, he should have posted them.

====
Response to point #7
====
If I just wanted a bunch of votes, I would make a bunch of sock accounts, use different proxy servers or different computers for each one, and just have a few non-serious debates on them. As I pointed out, Yraelz, Me, L-M, and Klep are some of the most active debaters on the site. This makes absolutely no sense when you think that we're all the same person. The motive just isn't there. If someone wanted to control the outcome of most of the debates, there are much easier ways, especially if said person can hack the debate.org web server, as my opponent claims I can.

====
Response to point #8
====
Yes, that's a possiblity. But it is still implausible. Here's my opponent's case:
A retired person, who can hack web servers, who wants to control the majority of the votes on a debating website, spends 100 hours a week using separate accounts on said website [controlling at least 4 of the most active accounts], using each of these accounts to have a massive number of debates.
HE HAS DONE NOTHING TO BACK THIS CASE UP. HE HAS SIMPLY SUGGESTED THE POSSIBILITY. If all we have to do is show possibility to prove our cases, allow me:
It is possible that we are each separate people, each spending a few hours on the website a day. Since we are rather active on this site, we tend to socialize very much, pick up each others' good debating tactics, etc. THIS ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE.

So my opponent has shown an implausible possiblity, I have shown a possiblity that makes complete sense.

====
Response to point #9
====
I had 4 votes when I posted it.

====
Response to point #10
====
See #8, I guess.

====
Response to point #11
====
If I was seriously as bent on not getting caught, I would have to make sure that each of the accounts used a different IP address. Which using multiple browsers does not accomplish. Once again, my opponent is only suggesting a possiblity, and has nothing to back up his arguments.

====
Response to point #12
====
More lack of anything to back up my opponent's version of events. Disagreeing with each other is simply something that is common in people who like to debate and talk to each other.

====
Response to point #13
====
No, it's not. Yraelz being a facebook friend of mine, if anything, means that we are different people. As I said, I have 73 friends on facebook. Is this evidence that I have 73 other identities? No. More baseless conjecture from my opponent.

====
Response to point #14
====
I actually know the poeple on my facebook, which is evidenced by the fact that they're mostly from my area, and many of them post on my wall in a way that clearly shows that I know them. For us to set this up too would require another 100 hours a week. It makes complete sense if we look at the situation as if we're each our own person, but it makes little to no sense if we assume that we're different people. It is possible, but it is astoundingly implausible, and there is little to no motive.

====
Response to point #15
====
I have shown that it is extraordinary. I've shown that my story - the normal, natural to assume one - is entirely plausible, and makes a lot of sense. However, my opponent's story makes no sense. The motive is barely there, if at all, since there are much easier ways to have a lot of votes. Also, we've been fairly unsuccessful, as you've shown by the debate Yraelz lost about Klep, L-M and him being the same person. That would be the last debate someone who was controlling the voting on debate.org would allow to be lost.

My opponent's case makes no sense, and he has not backed it up otherthan "Hey, it's possible."

It's possible that you're mother was responsible for 9/11, but possiblity cannot win me the "Your mom did 9/11" debate. I would have to show that it actually happened, and my opponent has not substantiated his case.

Great justice requires that you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SportsGuru 8 years ago
SportsGuru
With logical-master attacking other's life points, I choose 4 lvl 70 Dragonite. One uses hyperbeam to take out Slifer, and the remaining 3 take out his life points with their hyperbeams.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Whoops. I accidentally responded with my Kleptin account. Anyway, meesa don't know the rules to magic. :(

So I'm just gonna pull some yugioh sh_t. I reveal my trap card, card destruction. now you must discard every card in your hand and draw and equal number of cards. Next, I'm gonna play premature burial. With this card and for a cost of 800 life points, I am able to special summon any monster in my graveyard to the field. I summon Slifer the sky dragon (since I had discarded it earlier). And since I have 6 cards in my hand, I've got 6000 attack points. And since it appears that no one has monsters on the field, I attack your life points directly.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Hey! It's Logical's turn!!! Stop cheating!
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Tap RR --> Play 2 Mon's goblin raiders
Tap BB --> 2 Dark Ritual -->BBBBBB to mana pool
Tap F
Tap R
Sac 2 Mon's goblin --> 2x Fodder Launch

Myogin's indestructibility not protected from 0 toughness rule :P
Posted by SportsGuru 8 years ago
SportsGuru
I find it interesting that there are only 4 votes for beem0r
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
"In fact, on my facebook account, I have over 300 friends, and I only know like 10 of those people."

LOLOL!
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Correction: "Since" not "sense".
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
-Goes to find his magic cards....

I tap 4 islands and 5 forests to play Myojin of Life's Web. Keep in mind sense I have a legendary monster on the field no others can be in play.

Back to you Logical.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
I tap two forests, a mountain, and a swamp, then play "Whirlwind" to destroy all creatures with flying. The monkies die, and the Charizard dies.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Stop talking to yourself/myself.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Nitpelkbeem0rTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by GenEd 8 years ago
GenEd
Nitpelkbeem0rTied
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 jmanstar 8 years ago
jmanstar
Nitpelkbeem0rTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Nitpelkbeem0rTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Somnambulist 8 years ago
Somnambulist
Nitpelkbeem0rTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by zdog234 8 years ago
zdog234
Nitpelkbeem0rTied
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 scorpionclone 8 years ago
scorpionclone
Nitpelkbeem0rTied
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 brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Nitpelkbeem0rTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 8 years ago
SportsGuru
Nitpelkbeem0rTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Giant29 8 years ago
Giant29
Nitpelkbeem0rTied
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