Resolved: The user known as Kleptin will not accept this debate on balance.

So I’m sitting here eating a burger, onions, lettuce, ketchup, mayo, Caribbean jerk seasoning the works. And I’m half-heartedly listening to so-called Republican strategist Karl Rove flap his gums about Jed Bush again and am wondering if this guy is ever going to shut up. No lie . . . even when I hit the mute button, it’s like I can still hear him droning on. Weird stuff there. So anyway, I tune out after 30 seconds to check up on this super special awesome debate I accepted. You know, to see if my opponent is going to entertain us with super special awesome arguments. Imagine my surprise when I see him whining about me accepting his seemingly impossible to win debate in the first place. At first, I’m thinking . . . wow, is this guy for real? Like . . . bro, you saw me displaying interest in the comment section. It’s like we’re at a party, there’s one eggroll left on the eggroll platter, the host asks if anyone wants the last eggroll, PRO doesn’t say anything, I take the eggroll and then he blows up at me . . . passive aggressively of course! Like what the fudge?!? Can I say fudge here? Fudge. Fudge. Fudge. Fudgy. Fudge. Fudgity. Fudging. Fudge. Yeah, looks like I can. Then it hits me. Like, how did I not see it immediately? PRO has been drinking. And not a sip or cup or anything. No. Binge fudging drinking. I mean that’s the only explanation here. Now don’t get me wrong. I love the sauce as much as the next guy and would like to think there’s a debate equivalent to drunken fists, but debating under the influence can lead to some serious repercussions if not done responsibly and with consenting adults. Oh yeah, and something about choice. Anywho, I’m a nice guy, so please don’t weigh the above round against PRO in your decision. He’s not in the right state of mind. No culpable mens rea! ARGUMENTS Contention #1: Light Punch! PRO tells us that “regardless of whether my opponent is actually Kleptin or not, that is another point entirely from whether Kleptin was likely to accept the debate or not.” False. Look no further than the comment section. Prior to accepting the debate, I made my presence readily known and implied that I’d accept the debate. Even going by PRO’s alcohol laced reasoning, at that instant the probability of me, Kleptin, accepting the debate skyrocketed. Rather than cancel the debate, PRO allowed it to stay in place, insuring his defeat! He further says that I can’t be Kleptin since I’m not a good debater and because I’d be banned if I were Kleptin. On that the first claim, I don’t think I’ll be able to prove I’m a good debater until I get some—well---good arguments to refute. Ball is in PRO’s court on that one! However, PRO is clearly mistaken on the second claim. Simply by responding on two separate computers on two different internetz, one can easily get around admin detection. And I’ve decided to reveal myself because I feel guilty about my 7 year ruse and have decided confess my DDO sins. Should the admin remove me now, I accept full punishment for my crimes. Nevertheless, you are still to vote CON regardless. My crimes have nothing to do with determining the outcome of this debate. Contention #2: Medium Punch! PRO tells us that “My opponent has contradicted himself by stating that he is Kleptin and that he is best friends with Kleptin or some other such thing. He isn't Kleptin, but more on that in a minute. His contradiction means he's full of crap and all his contentiona should be dropped as a result.” When PRO sobers up, he can read my words in which I say “As a member of the Kleptin group known as "The cleaners" (evidence which I shall present if doubted), even if I weren't Kleptin.” I anticipated any and all notions that I wasn’t Kleptin and responded hypothetically. A good debater covers his bases! ;) Contention #3: Heavy Punch PRO tells us that solipsism is crap because “we could also be a brain in a vat and have signals fed to us, which makes more sense.” and “ It doesn't appear as if we can control incoming stimuli.” However, this response is unpersuasive simply because any notions of us being unable to control incoming stimuli are entirely result of conclusions drawn with the five human senses, each of which are readily easy to mislead. Fudge, we may as well say that because we know brains can’t survive in jars, solipsism is refuted. Just no. So as it stands, from this vantage point, it’s possible that Kleptin won’t accept this debate, not likely. Minutia: Sucker Punch PRO demands that you give him conduct because I’ve confessed my greatest sin. I agree that I’m in need of some punishment, but me being Kleptin has no bearing on the conduct I’ve shown in this debate. Clearly, a more effective and relevant means of punishment is in order. What you need to do is get theLwerd/Danielle, give her skin tight black leather and a paddle, send me to a dungeon (henceforth called the DDoungeon), chain me up and have her personally issue out my punishment for my DDO insolence. That is the only way to teach me a lesson and I demand I be punished this instant. I've been a really bad boy after all! Oh and this reply took me 9 minutes and 33 . . . no 35 seconds. Back to you, PRO!