I have a suspicion that the account by name of Atwinraven belongs to Kleptin.

Yes indeed, here we go. =) My opponent begins by attacking my statement that his statement that he has the suspicions cannot be considered valid by saying that it is infinitely regressive. For those who do not know what that means, it is "An arguer commits this fallacy when their argument has an explanation which, itself, requires an explanation, which needs another explanation, and so on; the explanation is never adequately supported. Take this for example: "All things must have a cause. The Universe must therefore have a cause. The cause must be God." But if all things must have a cause, then God must have a cause, and its cause must have a cause, and so on forever. Nothing is really explained, the argument is useless."(http://www.lsnk.org...) I am sorry, but I do not see how my argument is infinitely regressive (and therefore say that it is not). Now, I accidentally did not put my reason for your statement about your suspicions not being valid, but I will do so later in the argument. So voters, until my opponent can adequately explain WHY my argument is infinitely regressive, you must disregard his statement about my argument committing the above mentioned fallacy. My reason for his statement being invalid is that using only his statement alone does not prevent him from lying. Not only is my opponent "the number one expert on what feelings I feel", but the only one who feels what he feels. Before any accusations can be made, I will show why there is good reason to believe that Yrealz possibly lied. Now a look at Yrealz's profile page and one of his debates gives enough reason to believe that he is indeed lying. In the "About Me" section of his profile page(http://www.debate.org...), Yrealz clearly states "The fact that I consider debate to be a game permits me a moral leeway that allows me to advocate any position." My opponent is saying that he does not have to follow morals because of one of his opinions. Thus, he is certainly at a higher risk of lying than those who follow morals that are against lying. In this debate (http://www.debate.org...) my opponent says "However there remains a difference between Logical and I, where as he as stopped such strategies online I have continued to use them. I will commonly accuse opponents of not upholding burdens of proof where non-exist, advocate sound but faulty ideas to lay voters, and even force my opponent to play by my own rules where none should exist." My opponent eloquently states that he uses slimy tactics online. As humans are creatures of habit, it is likely that my opponent uses slimy tactics in many of his debates including this one. Thus, there is good reason to suspect that Yrealz is lying. Now, I have an alternative that can prove whether or not Yrealz lied. Although I do not want to appear like I am argument stealing, Logical-Master's suggestion in this debate (http://www.debate.org...) fits well here too. Yrealz can drive to my location, where multiple psychologists can examine and test him to see if he indeed has the aforementioned suspicion. The results can then be posted online and the voters can confirm that he was in the study. Otherwise, there are no current tests to determine whether Yrealz has these suspicions and the Unfalsifiability Fallacy would be committed. Also, his burden of proof would not be filled as he as no reliable proof otherwise. My opponent then goes on to attack my theoretical rebuttal to his statement that he has the suspicion. If you read my round 1 argument, it states "Similarly, I could claim that I am a psychic and have traveled through your mind and saw that you did not have these suspicions. Voters would have to take both of these statements at "face value"" Notice that I state that my theoretical rebuttal is invalid and can only be taken at face value. The whole point of the rebuttal is that Yrealz's opening statement is as invalid as the theoretical rebuttal. Thus, all attacks on the rebuttal are a red herring and should be ignored. My opponent then goes attacking my burden of proof statements. I have addressed why Yrealz has not fulfilled his burden and thus substantiated my own arguments. Since these things do not need to be readdressed, I will move on. Finally, some offense. My opponent states that the definition of suspicion is "the state of mind or feeling of one who suspects". However, for further clarification, we need the definition of the suspecting that one is doing in the state of mind that my opponent says he is in. suspecting: To think (a person) guilty without proof http://dictionary.reference.com... I also offer the definition of proof: proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. http://dictionary.reference.com... Now as you can see, he as given evidence on which his "suspicion" is based on. Thus, according to the above definition, it is proof. As suspecting cannot have proof, my opponent cannot be suspecting. If my opponent is not suspecting, he cannot be in "the state of mind or feeling of one who suspects". Thus, he cannot have a suspicion. To put it simply, because my opponent based his "suspicion" on something, it is not a suspicion. So, even if my opponent goes through the aforementioned psychological tests, he will still lose the debate on this point. Back to you.