My Opponent Will Not Mention Cats in this Debate

What profile picture was you talking about?... I forget sometimes… In all honesty, I have bad memory.Oh well, moving on!9Spaceking’s premise on reverse psychology:I see what you did there… but alas! Your attempts have failed. You see, I am not so easily tempted.No matter what you say, I will not say the things you desire in order for you to win.The syllogism which I have gathered from my opponent’s first argument: (hypothetical)P1.If someone tells someone something convincingly enough (but with the intention on trying to subconsciously convince the person to do the opposite), that targeted person (or audience) will supposedly do the opposite of what they were instructed.P2. From P1, we could gather that the “effects” of reverse psychology will supposedly cause NiamC (me) to do the opposite of what he (me) first originally intended to do.C1. NiamC will therefore supposedly do what his opponent, 9spaceking intended for him to do- thus causing NiamC to lose and 9Spaceking to win.Time to debunk 9Spaceking’s first argument.In defence of why the first premise is wrong (P1):My opponent had only provided one example of an instance of reverse psychology supposedly working. One example is way not enough to accurately conclude that I would do likewise to the resolution at hand. I can also say that in the case of Lady Gaga, the attempt of reverse psychology was not just directed at her fanbase, but the whole world. There were approximately 2,500,000 sales of this album so far up to this date (30/10/2014). The current approximation of the world population is around 7.125 billion people. I have calculated from these two numbers that the percentage of someone buying the Lady Gaga album Artpop is 0.0350877192982%. Don’t believe my math? Here is the source proving the accuracy of my calculation -> http://www.geteasysolution.com...Now, let’s pretend that what Lady gaga had done, really was an attempt of reverse psychology.Ok, carrying on. From the fact that only 0.0350877192982% of the world had succumbed to the “effects” of reverse psychology by Lady Gaga and her “anti-promotion” video, and that the targeted audience was the fanbase but also extended to the world. We can conclude that because your (9spacekings’) attempt of “reverse psychology” towards me, and the fact that it was only targeted towards me but also given the fact that I have made it extremely and blatantly obvious that I don’t intend to ever succumb to doing what my opponent intends for me to do- We can see that there is therefore an extremely small chance (perhaps even 0%) of your attempt of reverse psychology working on me.I would also like to just point out that the source that 9Spaceking had included (http://www.msn.com...) is neither legit or even a source due to the fact that the link takes you to a page which does not include any said article about Lady Gaga nor her album “Artpop”… The first premise has been debunked.In defence of why the second premise is wrong (P2):If reverse psychology were to be true, why on earth would I accept the debate upon reading and acknowledgement of the debate title and resolution if I knew that I would just end up falling victim to the effects of reverse psychology and therefore say the word which I said that I wouldn’t? You see? Your argument just doesn’t make sense.In addition, I would also like to say that given that I haven’t said the word which I’m not supposed to say so far in this debate, this is a pretty good indicator that no effects of reverse psychology have taken place on me. There is therefore a pretty high chance that this shall remain consistent throughout the remaining course of this debate.The second premise has been debunked.Because the 1st and 2nd premise are false and debunked, the contention has been nullified.1st Conclusion: I have shown for 9spaceking’s first argument to be false and I have successfully nullified ……9spaceking’s second argument:All I have to do to make my opponents second argument invalid and null is say the following:1) I say “no” to many things. In this case, I say no to what you say it is impossible for me to say no to.No.2) Therefore from me saying no:i. You should be crying right now… I don’t want you to though… but you clearly stated that you would cry if I said no… so, I would hate to think that your were lying to me , I do hope you weren’t lying to me? XDii. According to what you said, an certain furry like mammal animal should be crying as well ( the certain subject animal at hand) – this Is due to the fact that I have said no and to clarify, I shall say it again ->No.3) You say that I should be extremely guilty right now. You see, you are completely wrong- I have no remorse, no regret and I feel no guilt whatsoever for saying “no” (Oh look, I said it again) and supposedly causing you and another living thing to cry. : )4) I have wills of titanium, I could reject saying the forbidden word forever.Yeah… I don’t really like many animals… hmmn, or am I just playing devil’s advocate. O.o2nd Conclusion:I have defied what my opponent said I would do, all because I simply said “no”. From this, we can now conclude that 9Spaceking’s 2nd argument has now also been made invalid and null.Booyah!9Spaceking’s 3rd “argument”:Frankly, I must say that I am quite annoyed by what you have done.The thing is, that my opponent has presented you (the reader) and I with a photo of what appears to be showing me saying something completely different to what was actually said by me in the R1 of this very same debate!This is a satirical attempt to try and troll the debate further or maybe with just with the impure intent of trying to use this image as an attempt of trying to win unjustly or even perhaps to try and pressure me into resorting to playing by similar dirty tactical standards. I’m not going to be aggressive or hostile, as much as I am well and truly annoyed right now. 9spaceking, this one’s for you. Problems with the image that 9Spaceking has presented:1) We cannot trust the source validity of this photo at all. How are we to know whether we can trust the credibility of this image? What is even more suspicious, is the fact that my opponent had created the image (the image also cannot be sourced from anywhere else on the internet), so surely there must be an intent of pretence somewhere in this photo? 2) 9spaceking is undermining both the readers and I. This is the case in which if the reader/voters would please once again refer to the round 1 argument, you will in fact see the sentence says “I accept and I have done what I need to...” which by now you probably will have noticed that this sentence presented above does not correspond or match to the sentence presented in 9Spaceking’s photo. Given the fact that “I accept and I have done what I need to...” is actually from the debate page which has been shown to be, we can conclude that the photo presented by 9Spaceking and the contents of that photo is nothing but a fictitious and reformed image with the intent of attempting to change the nature of the debate in unjust favour of himself (9spaceking).3) That photo could be of another debate.4) There is no substantial proof from that photo that “pro” is NiamC (me). It could be someone else with the same avi as me.Also, I completely deny everything that was “apparently said by me” in that “screenshot”.From this, I can confidently conclude that the photo presented by 9spaceking is invalid, false and therefore makes his third argument now false, nullified and debunked.Full Conclusion:I have negated and “rek’d” all three of 9spacekings arguments- All of which have been fully contested. My opponent has not fulfilled the BOP.Onto the next round.