PetersSmith Works for Juggle

In round 3 pro concedes the debate. She tries to wriggle her way out of a loss by requesting a tie vote based on a faulty premise, however it is a concession and I should get the win based on that alone, but even if that concession is not accepted, I still win based on the standards I mentioned in round one which my opponent accepted by not contesting them, and I know she has not convinced anybody of her conspiracy theory. However if you want to use normal standards while also ignoring her concession, I still win based on the fact all my round 2 arguments were dropped when she wasted all of round 3. Her rebuttals and new aruments should be ignored, but even if you don't buy that, read on. Let's rehash what I said in round 2. "Peter Smith does not have an heir of authority around her because she secretly is employed by Juggle, likely some much more mundane explanation is likelier. Maybe she is an only child that always got her way, and the heir of authority is just her being herself and likely not even realizing she is doing it or knowing how to fix a problem. There is a reason why only children are bad at making friends. I am not saying that is the case here, but it is far more likely that somebody is an only child than a Juggle employee"The key words in this are highlighted. I think it's obvious my opponent can't win this argument, and is just wasting mine and the voter's time forcing me to waste characters addressing the absurd accusation that this is a personal attack. We are debating whether Petersmith is a Juggle employee or not. I gave 1 of a million possible explanations for why her behavior is the way it is. I did not say this is the most likely explanation, the only explanation or any other absurd thing. I made no assumptions, I merely mentioned a scenario that is more likely to explain the explanation. It's like somebody saying an alien abduction is more likely than Michael Jordan coming out of retirement. It is a statement on what is more liely, not a statement on what has or will happen. It is sad that pro has wasted our time on this. Here is what pro says: "Con did not did not insult her ideas, he attacked her character by saying she was more likely "an only child that always got her way," than a juggle employee, and implied this may be why she's bad at making friends. I was embarrassed when I read his R2, because I was expecting an argument that had substance, not a cheap shot to explain why she seemed authoritative on threads at times. " I am sure every single voter who is an only child is offended that you think calling somebody an only child is an insult. I am sure every socially awkward person is also offended thiat you would think calling people socially awkward is an insult. Let's just imagine it is an insult, it was still not a statement of fact that I made but a hypothetical, and anyone reading the quote knows it is a hypothetical. personally I think it would be insulting if somebody called me a Juggle employee than an only child, but that's just my opinion. Other responsesAge I gave her the benefit of the doubt about her age Emma, I don't asume she is a liar. If you think she is a liar then fine, but I thin she is being honest about her age, even if she did misrepresent her gender to get more respect in a male dominated environment. Moderation"Smith herself, (if we can believe anything she says) discredits my opponents theory about what led to her becoming a polls moderator. " She does not discredit my theory. She dismisses it out of hand while stating facts that don't even contradict it. For example in he comments she says "I became the poll mod in March of 2015 (joined in around August of of 2014), so that's 7 months I was on the site before becoming the mod. Airmax appointed me as mod because he didn't focus on the section, and believed I was "by far the most prolific user of the polls section. " I understood the section, cared for the section, and agreed to it out of the kindness of my heart. " None of that contradicts how Airmax's attention was drawn to her. With people continually singing her praises and Airmax noticing, yes this makes sense. Also it is obvious that people would choose the best member they can think of in the polls. I say she was a political football which drew Max's attention to her, and she says that is not true because she is an awesome poll member, without realizing that her being awesome is the reason she became a political football to start with. It is no coincidence she became a moderator the second the situation cooled down. I repeat, no facts either one of us provided contradict each other, only our interpretation of the facts. My interpretation does not even neccesarily contradict hers, she just thinks it does. Either way this is firm evidence that circumstances caused her to become a mod, making the Juggle employee theory for it less likely. If she was not a great polls user, in fact the most prolific, those circumstances would have never developed around her, but her awesomeness as much as circumstance is why she got the role. Either way, me and Petersmith both agree she got the spot due to factors having nothing to do with being an employee. Whether it be her awesomeness which squashes Emma's theories, or circumstances, squashing Emma's theories. There should be less suspicion cast if she got the position from being the best. If she was 2nd or 3rd best poll user, than my opponent's argument might make since. "Con mentions that technically a freelancer is not an employee, but a sub-contractor. May I remind con that the resolution of this debate, is that PetersSmith works for Juggle, and being a freelancer is still considered working for the company in which you receive a contract. " Nope, a self employed person is self employed. They work for themselves. They have clients, not bosses. My dentist does not work for me just because I pay him for a service. He exchanges his services for my money. This is an equal relationship. We both are purely self interested. An employer/employee relationship is a hierarchy. A client/service provider agreement is not a hierarchy. The cable company does not work for me when they come to my house to install cable. Wal-mart does not work for me just because I exchange money for their goods and services. Nobody is going to buy this twisting of the English language by you. Is was not even worthy of an attempt. Voters should ignore the new arguments, many of which can already be rebutted by me copy and pasting what I said in round 2. The last statement should be ignored also, it's a racist statement. It is my opponent's way of saying all white people look alike.