rezzealaux and The_Devils_Advocate are the same people

My regards to you as well. But I'm gonna win you back, The_Devils_Advocate. After all, I am your maker. And this is not Blade Runner. As TDA says, "Rezzealaux and The_Devils_Advocate are the same person. " is the meaning of the resolution. I was trying to say this last round, but I forgot to edit the quote and I didn't realize it until I looked over my post. "I would like to point out here that even though you say that I am one of your schizophrenic personalities" > Hold it right there. This is not what I claimed in my R1, nor did I give any reason to believe as such. In fact, I clearly state my position: "I am aware that I have dissociative identity disorder (more commonly known as multiple personality disorder). " Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is a completely different disorder than Schizophrenia. As my opponent defines from Wikipedia, I shall define from there as well. Now, if DID and Schizophrenia were the same disorder, we would be able to find them in the same article. This is not the case, as they have two entirely different articles (DID: . http://en.wikipedia.org..., Schizophrenia: . http://en.wikipedia.org...). Now that we've cleared that up… "this has yet to be proven. You say that because I proposed the topic than I have the burden of proof. But I am not the only one with the burden of proof. You too have one. " > This point that I have a burden of proof as well is true, to some extent, but not the amount that TDA says. The burden of proof I have is to show that I have DID. However, this cannot be done as I would be required to bring up a legitimate medical diagnosis, put my real name up on this site, and even then there's no real way to distinguish whether or not I am the person I claim to be nor is it possible to tell whether or not the medical form was just photoshopped. In other words, the burden of proof my opponent has placed upon me is impossible. "To only have one with a burden of proof is extremely abusive and destroys what intelligence one might recieve from a debate such as this. " > If someone claims a UFO landed in their backyard, they have the burden of proof to show some evidence that it really was there. Passerby's and friends don't have a burden of proof to show that a UFO didn't land there, because they're not the one making claims - however if they do make claims, then they must prove what they say as well. I have the burden of proof on my arguments, TDA has the burden of proof on his arguments. However, since TDA created and put forth the resolution, he has the burden of proof from that as well, meaning that even if I lose all my points, he must still show some proof that his side is indeed correct in order to win. If such a burden of proof is abusive, abuse is irrelevant because truth overrides. Intelligence is not a matter to worry about, as we would gain it from debating about the burden of proof. > Also, "abuse" is undefined. "Now for the real meat of the argument. Your main point is that we are the same person/body, but different personalities. I would like to say that even if we were to share the same body, the fact that we have different personalities makes us different people. The definition of person ranges wildly from the actual physical entity, to the social interactions that one has, and even to the thought patterns one has. All of these make up what a person is. You meet only one of those criterion. You admit that we have different thought patterns as you say that I dislike your administration. This has significance also in my social interaction with you. So this meets two criterion on what a person is. " > TDA mentions three definitions: physical entity, social interactions, and thought processes. He then says that I meet only one of those criteria. The thing he doesn't realize, though, is that this already gives me the win of the entire debate. Let's look to the definitions of "noodle" – particularly, these two definitions: "a narrow strip of unleavened egg dough that has been rolled thin and dried, boiled, and served alone or in soups, casseroles, etc. ; a ribbon-shaped pasta" and "a fool or simpleton". Now, if I go into the kitchen right now and get some Cup Noodles, I could call those noodles. This does not fit the second definition, but that's how definitions work – if something fit one of the criteria, it's sufficient to be called [whatever word]. Therefore, since he does not argue that we share the same body, we are therefore the same person, and therefore you vote PRO. "Not only that, but you say that my not capitalizing your name shows my disrespect and dislike of your administration. If that were the case, then I would have continued to show my dislike by not capitalizing it. But I have changed it because I did not know there was a preference. I apologize. " > Thank you very much. Now come back to me and I'll give you cake and a hug ^w^ "Now for discussing what schizophrenia is. " > You can throw all of this out. I do not have schizophrenia, I have DID. This explains why I don't know him very well, as one of DID's symptoms is amnesia due to other personalities. That in turn would explain the blackouts I talked about in R1. > You can throw out the next paragraph too. "Another argument proving my point is your usage of the english language. You say that you use "he" because it is less confusing. But from the very beginning you have talked about me in the third person. You find it natural to speak about me as a different person. " > Yes, referring to TDA with words like "he" is indeed third person and indeed is less confusing. However, this "argument" is not an argument at all, as it does not show how we are not the same person. > The "natural" part is an unbased assumption. In fact, I find it heavily devastating that I need to keep referring to TDA as a totally separate entity – I'd like for unity among all the identities that reside in this body, but my usage of language in this debate for the sake of being clear is not helping my purpose much at all. "The fact that you correct my spelling of Rezzealaux while claiming that I do that on purpose is contradictory to your purpose. If I was another identity of yours and you realized this, then you would not have corrected it as you would have known I was doing it out of dislike for you. But you correct it in order so that I may know how you want it spelled. This shows me that you know we're not the same person. " > Knowing that TDA was doing it out of dislike for me does not mean that I will not correct his mistakes. > My opponent claims that this shows that "[I] know that we're not the same person. " This is false. All this shows is that I realize we're different identities, and that I realize that even though TDA is separatist, he is still a part of me.