Larztheloser is a troll

In this round I will continue to argue that it is not likely I have opened the troll account in question. My opponent's case now rests on four key "facts", the first of which I can deal with quickly and easily. My opponent claims that because of a whole bunch of "coincidences" I am likely to be the culprit - even if I have already proven each of those "coincidences" to be both false and, in several cases, not even coincidental. By some insufficiently-established logic, my opponent's claim seems to be that if he has a great magnitude of false contentions he must be right, simply because of the sheer volume of his contentions. This line of reasoning commits several logical fallacies, such as making a non-sequiter and ad argumentum attack. If two wrongs do not make a right, I wonder what makes my opponent believe all of his wrong arguments, put together, make his conclusion correct? The second key fact is that my opponent still believes that he didn't soil my name in the process of saying that I am likely to have trolled his debate. My opponent dedicated a considerable proportion of his argument to this one, so I'll give it due attention. I'll deal with my opponent's arguments in the same order he did. Before I do, however, let me point out to voters that this is all completely irrelevant to the motion, which is actually about whether my opponent had good grounds to say that I was likely to be the troll of his debate. This debate is not actually about him soiling my name in the process - it's more about the fact that my opponent attacked me in the first place, without any good reason. If his position is even remotely defensible, then of course he has the free speech to say whatever he wants. In this instance, however, he has no evidence and so is trying to distract voters from the slander that this debate is really about. First, that nobody searches "larztheloser troll" on the Internet. Well, let us suppose that somebody wants to prove that I am a troll. They're likely to search for "troll" and my online username (which is pretty common knowledge). This argument is like asking why my opponent shouldn't say that I'm lazy online, or stupid, or ugly. Not only is it offensive to me, but it vindicates other people who say those kinds of things to me - who certainly have it in their interests to try to prove exactly that. I'd rather not name names, but believe me when I say that such people exist. Not on this site, obviously, but they do. Second, that loser is self-degrading. Even if it is, that does not give other people the right to insult me further. Even so, it isn't, because I don't see "losing" as a negative thing at all. At best, it's subjective - some things are indubitably good to lose, while others might interpret their losses negatively. Besides that, it's actually true - I have lost things in the past. Therefore, if people go around calling me a loser, I don't care. Troll, however, is not subjective - particularly in this case. How much more objectively trolling can the user in the other debate have really been? As the wikipedia link explains, troll is used almost exclusively in derogatory contexts. Besides that, it isn't true. Therefore if I am called a troll, I do care. Third, that my real name is not shared on this site. While my real name is partially shielded from people who know me by my online avatar (although my real name can be very easily worked out from the information I give, such as by enquiring the name of the winner of the debate tournaments I listed - I mostly keep it hidden so randoms who friend me and get banned a few days later don't see it), there are very few people who know me in the real world and don't know my online avatar, simply because larztheloser also happens to be the most important part of my email address. But even if not associated with my real identity, I don't appreciate my online identity being attacked either. The third key fact is that I haven't done it before, so according to my opponent, it must have looked really attractive to try just once when the opportunity presented itself. Actually, the opportunity is presenting itself right now, and it has since the very first debate I ever had on this site. I don't do so, however, because I consider trolling stupid and ridiculous. It's like saying, "well, I usually don't do drugs, but just because a shady dealer just walked up to me I suppose I can spend all my money on meth, just this once. " No sane person would say that. The fourth key fact is that a drunk is not an alcoholic. Imagine if, when facing allegations of wanting an open relationship, Newt Gingrich had said "well, I was immoral then, but that doesn't mean I'll always be immoral! " The point is not that I'm not likely to troll debates for the rest of my life. That's obvious. The point is that I didn't troll your debate. Besides, drunk isn't always used in a negative way, whereas troll is, so it isn't even a good example. As far as the lolz argument goes, I've already dealt with my opponent's response - I did not need to troll kill the debate to get lolz because I had already proven my point. If my opponent earnestly believed that nobody cared and nobody notices, he would have simply corrected his statement long ago. He could still believe whatever he wants, but there is no need to post that belief on the Internet if he has no evidence and no remaining arguments, especially as nobody cares, including him. The supposed "arguments" we have seen are absurd and even if true, all point to my opponent admitting he is wasting his time (when he could have satisfied everybody long ago by simply not suspecting me of trolling online publicly, or retracting his statement). He still refuses to do so. Even if I did troll his debate, which he cannot prove even on the balance of probabilities, why does that give him the right to commit slander? My opponent accuses me of being psychotically oversensitive. I'm not really qualified to comment on my own mental condition, but this is for sure - you don't need to be oversensitive to find being labelled a troll a big issue. It is objectively big, as both of my definitions attest. Besides that, my own mental condition has no bearing on my opponent's action. If I was the most clinically insane person on Earth it wouldn't make calling me a troll any more valid. End of story. That's why the motion falls.