izbo10 is an Idiot and a Troll

Unless specified, all information I provide can be verified at . http://www.debate.org... izbo10 is an idiot. Idiot: An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 1. His debates: izbo10 has been in 7 debates. He has lost 6 of them, with his only win currently at a score of 2-1. As I write this he is loosing all his debates by a combined score of 166-20. 2. Mental deficiency: izbo got into a debate with KRfournier about a week ago where he lost the debate badly (34-3) because he did not know how to handle his opponent’s argument. Izbo’s specifically stated in his own rules: “This debate is not about arguments for god”, yet he begins his final round with: “So far, my opponent has not even attempting an articulate argument for the rationality of god”… ok 6 of the 7 voters who voted against him explained to him that he lost because he did not argue his own resolution. But he is too mentally deficient to understand this. He instead goes on a temper tangent challenging everyone who voted against him to defend KRfournier’s argument. In his last debate with Grape (currently at 47-0) he again does the same thing he did with KRfournier by not recognizing that he contradicted his own resolution in his own rules by saying that: “The rule is simple you must defend this being a valid argument for the Invisible Pink Unicorn. ”. Grape then correctly pointed out the definition of the word valid and showed the following argument: Valid – in logic, an argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises Let the entire above argument by KRFournier be called KLet the invisible pink unicorn be called PP1. KP2. K → PC1. P Grapes argument that KRfournier’s argument flows logically was clearly an adequate point. But did Izbo address his opponents point as this was his mistake before? Of course not. He then takes the next round to refute KRFouriers conclusion instead of the argument made by Grape who he was debating. 3. Izbo10 has horrendous spelling and grammar. Everybody who has read any of his debates knows this and almost everybody comments on it. Here is the last message he sent me: "the resolution was he needed to argue it was a valid or in other words a good argument for the ipu. " Where to begin? Ok “The” should be capitalized because it is the first letter of a sentence. The word “was” should come after “he needed to argue”, and the word “that” would also help. There should also be a coma after “valid”. Lastly, since “ipu” is an acronym for “invisible pink unicorn” it should be capitalized. So let’s see how this comes together now: The resolution he needed to argue was that it was valid, or in other words a good argument for the IPU. I may have gotten one or two points wrong but either way, a definite improvement. 4. Self defeating and counter productive: izbo has gone on clear temper tantrums about loosing his debates yet he continues to challenge others to debate the same topic he has already lost numerous times. In his debate with Grape he has so far posted 46 comments, almost every single one of them either still arguing the topic he has lost now 3 times, or calling someone an idiot or some other third grade insult. This is obviously not going to accomplish anything. In his debate with grape he even attacks the readers multiple times. Here are two of his offenses: “So now with this said I am going to do a syllogism, I know, I know you guys have no clue what one is but you will see” “Imagine you replace IPU with Allah, allah for the idiots here is the muslim god, who is defined as the one true god and no other gods exist he is mutually exclusive. ” Way to win a debate. 5. More deficiency: He ignores advice on how to improve his debating. Besides the many voters who explained why they voted against him (that he still doesn’t understand) here is some of the advice he received: “you don't seem to communicate in writing the same thing you are thinking. First, the title of the debate--on this site--typically states the resolution at debate. ” KRfournier “Debate is not about being more logical. Debate is about explaining your logic to the barely literate idiots who abound on this community. Do that - and everyone will vote for you! ” Baggins “You lost that debate because you sucked at debating. ” Thaddeous “It is not the readers responsibility to "take the time" to understand anything. It is your responsibility to show the readers why your argument is valid and why your opponents argument is not. ” Me, followed by… “Double R, it is correct. ” Man-is-good “Your first round argument doesn't even fit your position on the proposition. ” KaytarHero 6. izbo actually accepted this debate. Enough said. Izbo is a troll In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(Internet) 7. Challenging his opponents: As I mentioned, he challenged everybody (or damn near) who voted against him to debate the topic he already lost. This alone is considered by most to be trolling but does not even scratch the surface with izbo. Here is the message he sent to my profile after voting against him: “double r before f**king voting on debates and whining that i am discussing rks argument you might have wanted to figure the f**k out that guess what the debate was about rk's argument. F**king moron. ” The “F” words were not censored when I received this message. BTW “i” should be capitalized. 8. His comments: I went to his debate with Grape and found that in the last 4 comment pages alone he has posted 12 comments. Here is what I found in only those 12 comments: “anybody who voted for that moron kr, really needs to justify this argument, you can't get away with wearing your a$$ as a hat on here with me. ” “KRfournier presented this as his argument for it being rational to place faith in a specific god, since a bunch of idiots voted for this argument they are being challenged to defend it for ipu…” “only lopsided to f'n morons who don't understand that rationality has to do with beliefs that have the best chance of being right, you guys have the combined intelligence of an ant. ” “the stupidity on here hurts seriously. ” “oh boy i was just thinking this through his argument is really really really really to the point of absurdity retarded… Wow how retarded are you people. ” “I suppose cliff you were too ignorant to notice that blatant mistake of combining all the beliefs rather then judging them individually. ” “I may have conceded it but there is also the possibility that i thought the argument was so stupid you idiots should see through it, under normal expectations. ” “hmm how many times do i need to say yes cliff, I have said yes 10 times now again i fear you have zero reading comprehension. ” 9. We all know it: izbo has been on this site for only 3 weeks and despite loosing 6 out of 7 debates, most of the readers already know who he is. Only trolls accomplish this. 10. He creates forums to complain about his losses (how pathetic):. http://www.debate.org... Summary Would I loose conduct for calling him an idiot, being that he accepted my challenge to defend the statement that he is an idiot? When I get some feedback from you guys on if I can call him an idiot I might just call him an idiot, but for now I will refrain from calling him an idiot because I would not want voters who think that I am calling him an idiot and take away conduct points because clearly, I never derogatively called him an idiot.