It is possible that in at least one of the below listed debates my opponent had the advantage.

As this will be my final round I will be covering each point my opponent has put forward and then summarizing. ========= Point 1 ========= In my last speech I granted that I had committed the non sequitur fallacy, I obviously cannot prove that people have in fact trolled me, thus it is simply a mere possibility. As my opponent agrees with me here I will let this point lie. Next my opponent attempts to discount my burden of proof. In all reality this matters little. I didn't even have to offer the burden of proof, all I really needed to offer was the idea. It is nearly statistically impossible that everyone on this site somehow has the same number of accounts. My opponent would be correct if he stated it is still a possibility, however unlikely, unfortunately for my opponent possibility does not detract from my case at all. Finally on this point my opponent states that we are not debating whether or not people actually used the advantage we are simply debating whether they have access to the advantage. This is rather fallacious, let's examine a quick counter example. In the NFL much like debate.org there are certain rules that are posed. One such rule circles around using certain steroids, drugs that enhance performance. These rules are of course in place because such drugs give players an unfair advantage. The same is true in this scenario. Much like the NFL debate.org has rules and because of the rules of fair play it also has unfair ways to gain advantages. If we are going to simply say it is not an advantage because everyone could unfairly use them then we might as well say the same of the NFL or really any advantage at all. There is always going to be someway that someone can potentially match the advantage, this does not detract from their being an advantage in the first place. Thus in this scenario, someone is going to have an advantage through multiple accounts and/or trolling. It is possible that I play by the rules (for clarification I do but my opponent is going to ask me to prove this and I can't) and therefor it is possible that in one of the above debates someone had an advantage. ========= Point 2 ========= Once again we appear to be debating equal potential. I have of course covered this above. My opponent argues that I have failed to show how I have more spite than other debaters. This of course is not important (though I thought it was probably apparent through the fact that I have so many debates) as I am advocating mere possibility. It is POSSIBLE that I have spite, thus it is POSSIBLE that someone had an advantage in one of the above listed debates. And also on this point, if my opponent would actually like to prove that spite will always be proportionally equal in every debate I would ask him to show a reason why this would be true. As much as it would be interesting if everyone liked everyone else the same it isn't quite true. Next my opponent attempts to back out of a statement he made early, specifically my opponent originally stated, "Take me for example: Voters have voted against me on all of my debates at least 5 or 6 times now (hence my new profile info)." And now he is stating, "For all you know, I could be lying and attempting to get some sympathy votes." This statement makes me a little sad. It is rather apparent that my opponent has lied to the debating community in his first round. He has realized that his point actually hurts him more than helps, and is trying to squirm out of it. I ask the voters to reject this attempt as it goes directly against any form of honest debate, this is after all debate.org, if my opponent wanted to create fabrications he should do so on his own time, outside of debates. Furthermore the fact that my opponent has already lied shows that he cannot be trusted. I ask that voters vote against my opponent on this premise alone as it will discourage my opponent from lying in the future and promote honest debate on this website. Next my opponent states that the fact that other voters have never noticed this proves his case. This would be true if I was not being straw manned with this statement. In my round 2 I was speaking of people noticing this about their own accounts, not Logical's account. I agree that my opponents analogy shows that equal advantage cancels out advantage. Sadly my opponent is not debating equal advantage he is debating potential advantage, and through his analogy he actually admits that I am correct. He starts it off by saying that four years ago Robby had an advantage over Billy but then Billy trained hard and now Robby has no advantage. This is a parralel to our current situation. As I possibly do not use multiple accounts, and as I possibly have more spite than other, I therefor possibly am at a disadvantage. ========= Point 3 ========= I actually only initiated this point because I was interested in seeing what my opponent might have to say. As he didn't actually argue anything on it I will simply drop it. I ask that if my opponent brings up any new points in his last round on this that they are disregarded as I will have had no chance to respond to them. Thanks for the debate Logical.