Larztheloser Should be "Knighted" With the Official Title "Beast Slayer"

Ok, I would like to some things before I begin: 1) Throughout your argument, you have been referring to me as “she”; I don’t like this, I don’t know if you were doing this intentionally but either way, you should know to stop now. 2) I was not trying to troll this debate. I am not a troll; you said that this would be a serious debate, so I stuck to this. Rebuttals: “Excellent work trolling the troll. ” I did not troll this debate; I set my arguments out to be serious, nothing else; it is obvious that you are trying to undermine me and my arguments in front of the voters. “A half-straw argument that isn't a straw man” Wait. .. so you are saying that I used a “straw” argument. .. .. That isn’t a Straw man. .. Ok. .. . Attn: Voters, This is my opponent’s adaptation of the syllogism which I had presented: P1. If Larz is neither a citizen of another commonwealth country--not Britain, then he cannot be entitled "Beast Slayer" P2. Larz is part of New Zealand, thus only qualified for "Sir" C: Larz cannot be "Beat Slayer" Due to the limitations by law. This is a more accurate account (I should know, it was my argument after all): P1: Larztheloser can’t be knighted with the title “Beast Slayer” due to “beast slayer” not being an official Knighthood title. P2: He can’t receive the title “Beast Slayer” due to the fact that he hasn't violently killed (slain) any “beasts”. P3: Larztheloser therefore can’t be knighted with the title “beast slayer”. Things wrong with my opponents account of my argument: 1) I said that Lars is a member of the commonwealth. The reason why he cannot receive the title of “beast slayer” is because it is not an official title; regardless of whether Lars is a citizen of a Commonwealth country. 2) I don’t know what you are trying to do here, but my opponent said that the 2nd premise was that “he can only receive “sir” because he is from New Zealand”. This is wrong; the 2nd premise is that he hasn't slain any “beasts” and therefore shouldn't receive the title “beast slayer”. What Pro said about my 2nd premise was actually part of my 1st premise; but then again, you had adapted my 1st premise as well. 3) for my contention, I never mentioned that there were limitations by law. Although, now that you brought it up, there are laws: Possible reasons why my opponent adapted my premises and contentions: 1) To undermine my main argument in front of the viewers and audience- by changing the structure of my premise so that it would be less effective to read and use in an argument; also by actually adapting one of the premises so that my argument would make less sense. Nice work, Pro. 2) My opponent didn't read all of my argument. If you did all of my argument, why would you change my premise argument? Either way, both are bad. “Since I am certain Airmax and larz have met in real life, surely they could role-play out a "knighting", thus, my rebuttal argument works like this:” Once again, only a figure of highest authority can give knighthoods + titles; ergo what Airmax would be doing, is not a real knighting and Larz would not receive any official title. Airmax therefore has no authority of giving knighthoods or titles of any sort. *Please note that the debate says: “. .with the official title of . .. ” Here’s a syllogism to debunk your argument: P1: Two people could do a role-play of a killing P2: The other person would pretend to be dead C: The person would have the status of being dead. To my opponent, my syllogism is logical but would not make sense; the syllogism has the same context as yours so ergo, yours wouldn't make sense. Furthermore, when you do a role-play of knighting, the person wouldn’t actually receive a knighthood or a title. Pro next attempts to prove that Larz supposedly had killed the mention debater after winning a debate against them, by apparently asking high skilled debaters about what happens when you lose a debate. My opponent has pasted messages between him and others about this matter but hasn't provided proof that these chats had actually occurred. Why we can assume these “message pastings” as fake: 1) My opponent has pasted the message in text format. How do we know that he didn’t just write them out? 2) We don’t have confirmation from any of these hoaxed debaters that these messages ever happened. Vice versa 3) If these were legit, why not just do a screen paste to make them seem legit. NO.3 still wouldn’t work due to the fact it is easy to modify text on a page temporarily and screenshot it. Here’s an example of one that I did- this proves my point * this screenshot is 100 % fake. We can see that there's no proof of authenticity of any of the messages shown by Pro. Ergo, we assume that these are fake and that his argument is once again refuted. Even worse, there is the possibility that 9spaceking has lied in order to garner favour in voting. Summary: My opponent hasn't fulfilled the BOP. My opponent adapted parts of my argument. My opponent has possibly lied to garner a win in his favour My arguments remain unrefuted.