It is possible that in at least one of the below listed debates my opponent had the advantage.

========== RE Point 1 ========== My first point was not really based on the non sequitur which my opponent committed in round one. In any case, he says it's a true point, so I'll just take this as a concession. My opponent starts off by imposing a ridiculous burden; he states that the only way I can prove all voters have an equal advantage will be if I can somehow demonstrate that every individual on this website has an equal amount of accounts. First, we must note that my opponent gives no reason as to why my argument concerning the fact that potentially anyone has access to a nigh limitless amount of accounts. Instead of combating my case with reasoning, he simply moves the goal post and tells me that my previous shot didn't count. Second (and once more), in this debate, we are not discussing whether or not PRO's opponents UTILIZED their advantages (which would hence be actually going through the process of creating multiple debate.org accounts); we're discussing whether or not they actually have access to said advantages in the first place. Given that there are all sorts of free websites (yahoo.com is a popular example) which allow users to create as many email addresses as they wish, I'd say that on balance, this really isn't an advantage since just about anybody has access. This was overlooked in the previous round, so don't consider any burden which my opponent imposes until he actually disproves the above reasoning. ========= RE Point 2 ========= This falls back to the above point. And like the above point, this is something which my opponent does not truly bother to address. I don't need to prove whether or not spite is utilized on debates equally; I merely need to prove that the advantage of spite exist on both sides with equal potential. So far, PRO has failed to demonstrate how he has more potential for spite than anyone else on this website, much less his laundry list of debates. The most he has done is attempt to demonstrate that I have more potential for spite than he does since I have claimed that there have been six occasions where my account has been gang raped by numskulls whereas he has claimed that he has merely experienced four. Why should you believe me on this matter? For all you know, I could be lying and attempting to get some sympathy votes. One could say the same about my opponent. Thus, you really have no reason to consider either of our statements on such issues as our testimonies are not to be considered credible, given our intentions in this debate. The mere fact that "other voters have never noticed this phenomenon" is all the more reason not to consider these testimonies. As for whether or not my analogy is flawed, you must note that this is also something which my opponent does not elaborate on. Furthermore, my analogy had nothing to do with the point he was referring to. Rather, its purpose was to show that equal advantage cancels out the notion of one side having the advantage. ========= Point 3 ========= As suggested in the comments section, I truly don't remember where I was going with this one. Thankfully, my opponent doesn't bother to provide an argument to back this point up(burden of proof belongs to him since he initiated this claim into the debate). Thus, the point automatically falls apart since it has no premise. I believe what my opponent is attempting to argue is that "It is possible that in at least one of the below listed debates my opponent had utilized the advantage." Unfortunately, this is not the resolution, hence my opponent has yet to even uphold his side of the actual resolution. With this being noted, it is quite obvious that the vote must go to CON. I now await my opponent's final rebabble.