I have a suspicion that the account by name of Atwinraven belongs to Kleptin.

Round 3! Fight! My opponent begins his round 2 by stating that his argument is not infinitely regressive at all. Sadly my opponent has attempted to disprove my definition by only using one type of infinitely regressiveness. Thus my opponent has used a fallacy in an attempt to disprove my fallacy. This would be like akin to saying, "a poodle is not a dog because it does not look like my terrier which is a dog." This is faulty, there are many different kinds of dogs as there are a few different types of way in which one can be infinitely regressive. The logic in this case is very simple. My opponent denies me the ability to use personal feeling as evidence. Which means someone else would have to decide what my personal feelings were. However the only way to do this would be to ask me, which must be denied. Which means every news source out there that has any sort of personal feeling or opinion is thereby void. My opponent is essentially asking for some type of objective source that simply does not exist (to our knowledge). Under my opponent's objective system nothing would ever qualify as any sort of evidence. Thus my opponent's system is infinitely regressive. Next my opponent goes on to attempt to prove that my opinion cannot be considered because I may have lied. He cites my profile which states I have a moral leeway that allows me to advocate anything. This is a great example of the slippery slope argument. My opponent assumes since one event has occurred, my moral leeway, then it will inevitably have to be followed by another, me lying in debates. This is simply untrue, my moral leeway gives me the ability to argue positions that I do not actually believe in, but it doesn't mean I have to lie in any way while advocating those positions. Take abortion as a great example, I feel that abortion is morally fine, however if needed to I could argue that pro-life position. This doesn't mean I would have to lie it simply means I would have to advocate the facts of the other side in an appealing manner. Next my opponent keeps on this train of thought and shows examples from past debates. Great. 1. Notice none of these examples actually say that I have every lied in a debate. 2. Cross apply my profile which says, "I have a moral leeway that allows me to advocate any position" this means that in those debates I may not have been advocating the position that I actually supported. Thus my opponent graciously offers me the opportunity to have multiple psychologists examine me to see if I actually do have this suspicion or not. I would love to, in fact I am dieing for this opportunity. Sadly however this is my opponents point that he is attempting to prove, thus I must request that he wires me the money in order to do this. At which point I will go in for these tests and post the results in the comment section and everyone can vote on it. It should be noted if my opponent does not do this he will be committing the Unfalsifiability Fallacy against himself. I advocate he does not do this, as if he is unable to prove my case false he will surely lose. My opponent goes on to drop his theoretical rebuttal which stated that he could be a psychic and claim I didn't have this suspicion. He accuses my points of all having been red herrings and then moves on. This is completely faulty. My points lead me to the conclusion that any statement such as this that he could make would require some additional burden of proof on his part. For instance in the psychic case he would first have to prove himself a psychic. As he cannot do this then he cannot make this theoretical rebuttal. There is no scenario in which his theoretical knowledge about me will precede my own without an additional burden of proof. My opponent has not brought this additional burden of proof. Finally my opponent argues that suspicion cannot have proof. I agree with this statement. However I also have a suspicion that Kleptin may have been joking, if we look at the context, thus I cannot use his statement as proof without more knowledge. If per say I learned that both accounts had the same IP address or that had a real discussion with Kleptin about this then I would be able to call such a statement proof. As I cannot do this it is simply evidence. Evidence is not the same thing as proof. As the evidence in this case is not sufficient to establish the point true. My opponents definition: proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. It should also be noted that suspicion and belief are two different things. With all of this in mind I can only see a vote in affirmation of this resolution as I have proven that my knowledge of myself must come first and that I have shown where my suspicion stems from. This is a logical stemming of my suspicion. My opponent on the other hand has completely dropped my burden of proof argument and has brought exactly 0 evidence against me, all he has effectively done is advocate that my evidence isn't enough. Thanks. =)