This debate will not be interesting.

LET ME START BY SAYING THAT ALL OF YOU SHOULD GO DOWN TO FUNKY TOWN 1) FALSE REALITY IS NOT INTERESTED. My opponent starts off by accusing me of interested in this debate. He attempts to support this claim by stating that this debate has held my curiosity and that my attention been held, but I have evidence to suggest otherwise. Ladies and gentleman, observe the following comment taken from the comment section in another debate: "I've read your description of this on another comment section and I'm not entirely certain about how things flow. I'll see how this debate goes and will probably take up the next one (assuming there is a next one)." One question comes to mind: If this debate has held my attention or made me curious, why would I care about his comments made in completly different debates? Why would the possibility of me not not being interested in this debate bother him? For that matter, what would prompt me to go to another one of his debates (one that has nothing to do with this debate) and mention ANOTHER DEBATE (despite that no one brought it up beforehand). Clearly, this debate does have a hold over my attention or has carried my curiosity. As for not being eager to respond to this debate, my opponent posted his response one day after he said he was going to. The fourth reference is berger mister mister berger. If that's eagerness to respond, I don't know what is. Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that my opponent keeps accusing me of replying in my rounds. If this debate truly couldn't hold my attention in any shape or form, he thinks I should forfeit all of my rounds. His only defense against this is a misconstrution of a definition to suit his ends, but as he has shown from the description of his intentions in this debate, he accepted this debate out of his own free will merely due to the fact that he was bored. So no, there was no "need involved." Rather, he participated in this debate simply because he WANTED to. And what do you do when you're bored? You attempt to relieve your boredom by doing something that INTERESTS you. I haven't done any of that. As I had warned you in the previous round, my opponent would be resorting to some deception. In this round, he attempts to impose a ridiculous burden by stating that if anyone ONE person finds this debate interesting, he will hence win by default. Well, let's examine his logic for this Syllogism Format: 1) The topic concerns whether or not the debate itself is uninteresting. 2)Therefore, for this debate to be interesting to anyone proves it to be interesting. 3) Therefore, if anyone finds this debate interesting, my stance will be affirmed. Clearly, the second premise is a non sequitur. Just because the topic concerns whether or not the debate itself is uninteresting, it doesn't mean that one person approving of it will show that it isn't uninteresting. It is only logical that we go by majority to determine what is and isn't uninteresting. My opponent has not shown this, and according to him, one can determine whether or not someone whom they've never met is interested. Which brings me to my next point on this issue. Since my opponent can only show that HE is interested in this debate, me proving that "I AM NOT interested" or that "My evidence for showing that I was uninterested is not flawed" would clearly make me the winner of this debate. 3) "WILL NOT" This is more trickery on my opponent's part as he insist that "will not" alludes to what people think of the full debate rather than the debating. Unfortunately for him, this does not help him at all. If any segment of this debate is found to be uninteresting, then the final outcome will be that this debate was uninteresting to AT LEAST some degree. And since people can read this debate at their convenience (contrary to a live debate), they shouldn't have a problem. 4) HUNCHES: I am basing my conclusion on the very words and online actions of my opponent as well as the notion that everything he has previously stated about himself is true. In other words, I don't need to personally know my opponent. Of course, if that is needed, then it goes back to my opponent's original claim about being interested in this debate; if relying on his word isn't good enough, then it would only be logical that my opponent present empirical evidence that shows he is interested in this debate. Doing this is difficult but possible. This website doesn't encourage the kind of goal my opponent refers to. Proof? Observe the following words provided by the webmaster: "Open dialogue and honest debate are how great businesses ideas are created, how democracies were developed and continue to thrive, and how Debate.org came to life. " - http://www.debate.org...... Notice the words "HONEST DEBATE." Furthermore, he did attempted to deceive the audience, by making you think that my debating in a debate is proof of my being interested, when it only shows dedication. If there is any interest from this debate, its only winning. 5) INTENT: Notice how my opponent ignores the second question I brought up. It concerned why I would be so "gung ho" in contributing to this debate and making it as interesting as possible. The fact that he is doing so shows that I don't care about this debate, but am just debating. And to care about something, there has to be some level of interest involved, which there isn't. As I've insinuated previously, this is more evidence that I am uninterested. If you've read this far then you've noticed I've copided and pasted LMs debate and changing a few words in my favor. This would show that you are interested. However, upon this realization, most (with the exception of Yraelz) have skiped this section. FalseReality must have AIDS is the fourth reference. Yes, I know. 6) MY INTEREST IN THIS DEBATE. False. My reason is valid. I created this debate and have control over the direction goes to. Not only that, but despite the way my opponent is presenting his case, I am still able to respond to each and every single point he makes. This does not uphold the definition of interesting for me. However, if there is need for another reason of my uninterest from this debate, it is the very fact that I don't think this debate will be interesting. By definition, he knew I would only end up providing him with evidence for this notion during the remainder of this debate. On the matter of both of us being absolutely ecstatic about this debate, it does reflect the debate. Granted that only we can benefit from this, we'd be the only ones interested, or otherwise for me, in this particular department. Now, if the resolution had stated an unneeded specific, this would be a valid point on my opponent's part. However, by making that crucial exclusion, the vaquness of my idea on whos interest is needed, being that of the debaters, is fair game. As for the rest of the points created during cross examination, answering them would be superfluous since I've covered them above. I will say one last thing: I will be saving my round 5 for until the debate is 3 spaces down in the Voting Period section, in order to examine the point I hoped to prove as I stated in round 1. The 6th reference is 'I was the Turkey all along'. I apologize to Logical Master on both accounts of not immediatly responding to his round 5 queries, and for thouroughly making a mockery of his extremly well thought out round 3 reply. So I'll say right now, since I won't be responding in round 5, to vote depending on whether you thought this debate was interesting. Hopefully for him, Logical Master made it interesting, while I can only hope that it wasn't. K BYE!