MassiveDump is imabench

My case:In the last round, I gave four reasons for why it is impossible for Imabench and MassiveDump to be the same person, so let's see how Pro responded.1. Different coloured hair.Pro doesn't deny my claim. He only asks for a source and suggests the possibility that he dyed his hair. Here is a video dated 5/24/2013 showing MassiveDump with his red hair. youtube.com/watch?v=b5B2eb8JtVYHere's an episode of The Weekly Stupid dated 5/3/2013 showing Imabench without red hair. youtube.com/watch?v=Kr-ABOnP5rIAnd here is another dated 8/30/2013 showing Imabench without red hair.If they are the same person, that would mean he died his hair red, then blonde again within just a few months. While possibly, surely it is not reasonble to believe, and Pro needs to come up with something better than mere possibility to undermine my arguments.1.a. Since I went to the trouble of posting video sources, I might as well also point out that MassiveDump and Imabench do not look like the same person, and they have different voices, as is evident in the videos. It is plainly evident that they are not the same person.2. The weekly stupidPro doesn't refute this point. He just rhetorically asks what it proves. I already explained what it proves. By the indiscernibility of identicals, it proves they are not the same person.3. Christian.Again, Pro doesn't dispute the point. He just asks for a source. MassiveDump announced that he is a Christian. http://www.debate.org... said that unless Jedi-ism is an option, he does not care for customizing the religion section of his profile. http://www.debate.org...;4. deactivated account.Pro corrected me, saying Imabench was banned. I take the correction, but that doesn't refute the point. If one was banned and the other wasn't, then they're not the same person. Everything else Pro said is irrelevant to this point.Pro's caseAs I pointed out in the last round, Pro could name a dozen different things that Imabench and MassiveDump had in common, but it wouldn't prove his point. The only way they can be the same person is they have everything in common. Pro only named two things they have in common. That is not sufficient to establish his case even if both things are true.But, they are not true. First, he claims that their debating skills are "practically the same." But his own statements contradict the claim that their debating skills are practically the same. He says that MassiveDump has yet to reach 1/5 the number of debates that Imabench has, yet their ELO's are very close. If MassiveDump can reach the same ELO with 1/5 of the debates, then he's clearly a better debater. So they cannot be the same person.Besides, "practically the same" is not sufficient to claim they are the same person. If they are the same person, then their debating skills would be exactly the same.Second, Pro claims that both MassiveDump and Imabench love Frozen. While he chides me earlier for not providing sources, Pro provided no sources for this claim. In fact, he admitted that he couldn't.But as I've already pointed out, it's insufficient to claim they are the same person anyway. Lots of people love Frozen. It doesn't mean we're all the same person.The indiscernibility of identicals.Pro attempts to deny the indiscernibility of identicals by coming up with a supposed counter-example, namely, that of a bipolar person. This argument of Pro's is self-refuting. If the indiscernibilties of identicals is false, then it will be impossible for Pro to prove that Imabench and MassiveDump are the same person. When Pro points to the similarities between them in his attempt to show they are the same person, he is assuming the indicernibility of identicals. So by denying the principle, he is refuting his own argument.But his counter-examples don't work anyway. The first example he gives is of a bi-polar person. The fact that what is true of one personality is not true of the other personality only means there are two personalities. It doesn't mean there are two different person. To be bi-polar means that one person has two different personalities, and Pro admits that "He is the same person."The second examples is of a person who is happy one moment, but unhappy the next moment. Since we are talking about two different moments of time, this is not a counter-example to the indiscernibility of identicals. If the same person were happy one moment and sad the next, it will be true that "He was happy at time = 1" and that "he was unhappy at time = 2." If he was both happy and not happy at the same time and in the same sense, then that would serve as a counter-example.There can be no legitimate counter-example to the law of identity because it is a fundamental law of logic without which reasoning would be impossible.