Resolved: While debating, my opponent cannot lose The Game.

Hello again. I am still in the United States thus don't have to swap places with my replacement just yet. I understand that my opponent has requested my name. I am Takahashi Makoto. It is very nice to meet you, Eli. I understand that you are surprised to have never heard of me from my cousin, Daniel based on the both of you having debated several times and subsequently having had several conversations concerning his debating career. I must say that your surprise bears no logic to it. 1) Daniel has informed me that the two of you have never debated on this website and that anyone reading this debate is free to scan all of his past debates to confirm this. I can't confirm this for myself, but since he did say that anyone is free to check his past debates in this website, this is a non-issue. 2) He has also informed me that the most he has ever informed anyone on this website of his debating career is his participation in high school formal debating and a few details at that. 3) Just because you chatted with someone a few times online, it is unreasonable to assume that they'd tell you all about their background information. Has Daniel told you about his first girlfriend? Has Daniel told you about what position he played on his highschool football team? Has Daniel told you how about how many siblings he has? Has Daniel told you about where his family went on vacation a few months ago? Has Daniel told you where he was born? From what I've been told, he hasn't and I don't see why he would feel compelled to do so. My opponent has claimed that this mysterious Webmaster is within his rights to tear down this account if anyone else types even a letter on this debate. I feel such a claim is simply outrageous as I've never heard of an administrator who would cancel a user's account simply because a trusted companion is using it. Perhaps my opponent can cite these rules which he suggests have been written. I've been told that my opponent is willing to debate contentions brought up at any time. From what I've gathered, the contention I was upholding for this debate was that "since common sense dictates that since everything I've mentioned can POSSIBLY be true, that I've won the debate." I'm not completely sure what that means, but I do support this and believe that anyone who reads this debate would be inclined to agree." This is my sole contention for this debate and I suspect that everything which I've been talking about supports this. Daniel has informed me that my opponent had requested that Daniel was to read every word out to me in accordance to his first round parameters. However, Daniel has also informed me that my opponent ONLY requested that I personally REVIEW every word of the first round and the website which was provided. I apologize for being unable to understand anything which was written, but I DID review it to the best of my ability. I cannot help but get the feeling that someone is trying to deceive me. I suspect it is my opponent and believe that a simple reading of the rules in the first round shall indicate what the rules actually are. My opponent makes the accusation that I am not truly Daniel's cousin. He bases this on debate.org dictating that Logical-Master's true name is Daniel. I must say that this is yet again something spouted from my opponent which is all but logical. Debate.org is not an omnipotent/omniscient being which possesses infallibility. It cannot measure who is behind an account at any particular time. For all my opponent knows, Daniel doesn't even exist and is nothing more than an alternate account perpetuated by another user from this website. To question this website's supposed infallibility further, I had Daniel take the liberty of changing the account name to Makoto. Now, debate.org is reporting this account under my name. I've also taken the liberty of having Daniel tell me the current name of my opponent. My opponent's name is currently "rf fr"; his name is not Eli. I hope I've made it clear as to why my opponent's accusation is nonsense. There is no rule stating that the person who created the account must always be the one doing the debating, I've been informed that my opponent has created no such rule restricting this account's creator to being the one to do the debate, nor are we to believe that every bit of information users provide about themselves is true. MORE IMPORTANTLY, this seems to have something to do with the claim I said was supporting. I said that everything which I've said here is POSSIBLY true. Even if my opponent wants to deny that I am telling the truth, he cannot deny that it's possible. I have a strong hunch that this possibility is what wins me this debate. If there is a word possible or possibly in my opponent's first round, look for it and see if you see a connection. Finally, I understand that my opponent has proclaimed that I cannot post any comments about our debate after I have posted round 1 and that anything typed before his round 2 response is acceptable. I don't know who my opponent thinks he is, but being expected to abide by rules/parameters created in the middle of a debate is a very ridiculous request. I've requested Daniel to check the first round to see if such a rule or a rule permitting new rules to be formed had been created. No such rules have been crafted, thus I am not abided to follow them. I've again reviewed the website mentioned in the first round, but still cannot understand any of what was written and my cousin refuses to translate it for me. I again express great hope in the accuracy of my cousin's translation elsewhere. If anything has been missed or overlooked, I am not to blame. I look forward to the next round of the debate.