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

Second, for the good of debate. org, I'd advise that you vote without bias and vote on the actual arguments in the debate. With that said, let us proceed. In today's case, I shall disprove the claim "It is possible that in at least one of the below listed debates my opponent had the advantage. " Usually, I'd look for some technicality in the wording and turn the debate upside down for my opponent, but today, I'll play fair and uphold the polar opposite of the topic; I will prove that it is in fact IMPOSSIBLE that in at least one of the listed debates, Yraelz's opponent had the advantage. With that said, one thing must be noted. If at any time my opponent insist to resort to an argument insisting that anything is possible in reality, I will change gears and resort to a far more formidable argument. Let us keep things as intended by round 1. Now, the first thing we must take into consideration is that there is no need for me to examine the laundry list of debates which my opponent cited in round 1. Examination isn't necessary as I shall show below. Neglecting the fact that my opponent's reasoning for malicious voters voting against him is non sequitur (just because his win ratio drops, it doesn't automatically lead us to conclude that people are out to spite him), the fact of the matter is that EVERYONE on debate. org has the option of "self voting via multiple accounting. " Even my opponent (and for all we know, he has done it, which would even explain the rumors about him having multiple accounts) could use multiple accounts to tip the voting in his scale. Even assuming my opponent hasn't utilized this "advantage", it doesn't mean he didn't have access to it. Furthermore, my opponent also has access to the so-called "advantage" of spiteful voters. My opponent isn't the only one whom individuals have the potential to dislike on this website. 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). Once again, everyone has the potential to be disliked and voted against by illegit voters. The most we can do is conclude that this advantage hasn't been utilized in favor of my opponent. Nonetheless, it's still in possession. Thus, since everyone on debate. org has this "advantage", it really can't even be considered an advantage. After all, if both sides possess the same ability, neither will ever be in a better position than the other based on this ability . Disagree? Lets look at an example: For years, Robby always had the advantage over Billy in track races due to his superior speed. But eventually, Billy trained hard enough and was able to gain speed equal to that of Robby's. With equal speed, there was no longer an advantage or disadvantage of speed. Simple, no? Therefore, his opponents never had the advantage (as PRO defines it in round 1). Therefore, it is impossible that in at least one of PRO's debates, that his opponent had the advantage. In the next round, I predict my opponent will attempt to provide an abusive definition of advantage or change his argument. If or when he does one and/or the other, don't buy into his smoke and mirrors. Your move.