Kleptin, Logical-Master, and Yraelz are all the same person.

Looks like this round is going to have to be good. Lets see what I can do. ..... I think I will begin with the pictures. Yep they are forgeries nice job, you got it right. And yes the lighting is off in at least two of them. However lets examine the pictures in the order in which I made each of them. 1. I started with my own picture as finding a spot that looked like Montana proved the least difficult. Photo shopped a sign in that originally said "Welcome to Denver" and then overwrote it with Montana. At which point I found a protester and destroyed his sign making it read what I wanted. I then photo shoped him in. As it was my first picture it looked rather bad. (Crop lines around sleeves bad!) 2. Would be Logical-Master. Finding a black college protester was nearly impossible much less one actually looking at the Camera. Thus I had to go with someone who wasn't looking at the camera at all. However the photoshop job here was significantly better. The only crop lines clearly visible are those right around the sign. The lighting however is a little off which made me sad. 3. Finally I did Kleptin's picture. This picture was my third and took about 2 hours to do. (Yeah photoshop takes forever) Obviously I needed an old man as Kleptin is supposed to be 118 and somewhere in Hong Kong. The picture of Hong Kong was almost completely dark in its original but I finally figured out how to adjust the light settings so they were congruent with Kleptin's character. I once again messed up the crop job a tad. There is a noticable discoloration near his right elbow and a small blur over his left shoulder. All in all though I was rather proud of the picture as it looked almost real. So I realize now that everyone reading this is like, "Wtf Yraelz......". Thus I present my points in a logical order. 1. This isn't my burden of proof, the only reason I ended up taking the 6 hours to go out of my way and do the photoshop job was because I was completely and utterly bored with my day. My case in this round is that we are not all the same people, I can choose to prove said case however I desire and have offered my own proof for this. My opponent on the other hand has ways in which he wants to prove it and thus he has the burden of proof on those ways. The idea that we should all stand in front of signs is a suggestion from himself and therefor is his burden of proof. -IMPORTANT- I have just as much ability to make those two stand in front of signs of wherever they are from as my opponent does! My opponent attempts to claim this is my burden of proof but it simply is not. I have burden of proof on my 6 points, I do not have a burden of proof to proves the pro's own point for him. 2. Even if for some reason my voters feel that this should be my burden of proof I can at the very least convince you that it is no greater a form of proof than any other of the scenario's my opponent debunked. For one, the fact that Kleptin says he is 118 years old is nearly impossible, therefor requiring me to prove that Kleptin is 118 years old is impossible because he is not. -IMPORTANT- Secondly even if the statements in each of our profiles were 100% factual picture evidence would not prove this case! Look specifically to what I managed to do given 6 hours with photoshop. What if I had taken 18 hours instead? Spaced it out over 3 days. Given the time and motivation I, a complete newb at photoshop, could make convincing pictures with a little practice. 3. Next, yet another point why this evidence is no greater. I can take almost any picture and point out something that looks photoshopped in it to prove that it is not reliable. In fact, lets examine the pictures my opponent has handed us. a. http://i262.photobucket.com... Wow... Lets look at this guy in relation to his background. Looks like he was photo shopped into a completely blurry picture. Not to mention that he is totally off color with the rest of the picture. The photo in his hand could be photoshopped from anywhere. b.http://i262.photobucket.com... Look where the sign enters the ground on the left hand side. Could definitely be a photo shop happening there. c. http://i262.photobucket.com... The entire ground looks fake. Not to mention the road has an obvious crop line going all the way down it on the left side. Yuck! d.http://i262.photobucket.com... This one is actually really funny. I think it might actually be photoshopped. First off we have a strange white rectangle the woman. The sign has multiple rectangles on it that look strange. It also has a sign to the right hand side of it that looks like it was blatantly photoshopped in (notice crop lines on the right hand side.) The woman herself has a mysterious glow on her upper left shoulder and part of her right arm looks like it might be missing. Though that could just be a shadow. The sign looks like it gives off its own florescent glow. Thus my point: Any picture can look photoshopped. A picture does not qualify has evidence in this round. 4. Notice the line where my opponent states, "for the readers convenience, Logical Master, Kleptin and Yrealz have posted Yraelz fake photos from his link" This is where I can actually prove we are not the same people. Had we been the same people I could have very easily just posted the pictures directly into each of our profile pics. Instead I had to post it somewhere else so that people could see, as I do not have access to their accounts. In turn they took the profile pictures and posted them into their own pictures, this is the worst possible thing they could have done. Had I had control over them this would have never happened, because I could have used the fact that they refused to post my phony pictures in order to bolster my point that I have 0 control over them. Thus I will begin my summary. In this round there is nothing that stands as 100% proof. There is no way that I can 100% prove my side of the resolution as there is no way that my opponent can 100% prove his side of the resolution. Instead we must convince the voters of the more realistic or likely scenario. Here are my six counterpoints. 1. My opponent states, "Like I said before, John Doe shows many traits of being an oddball, so anything is possible with him." This is where he loses this point, as he concedes that the idea of John Doe's existence is unlikely by him being an oddball. 2. "Like I said, John Doe's a freak of nature" Once again concedes the point. 3. The idea of John Doe being liked and John Doe having a high win rate are not mutually exclusive. Both can happen at the same time and would hypothetically make John Doe even happier. Thus I would have many many accounts and perfect records. 4. Maybe I could. Why would I bother putting myself in risky situations like creating those debate though if I was trying to get away with it? Doo dee doo... 5. My opponent once again gives the freak of nature argument. He actually says in this point, "So its not impossible" which is true, but it is highly unlikely. 6. My opponent simply states that he was simply observing on this point. I can't argue with that. My point stands that we are all good debates thus we use good debating styles. Finally my opponent finishes his speech with the statement, "So, again, I can prove that you are all the same person by you neglecting to do so." Thus I would once again like to point out that there is no definite proof for this case and secondly that a lack of proof is not proof in itself. Attempting to prove something by citing a lack of proof does nothing. Thanks.