Kleptin, Logical-Master, and Yraelz are all the same person.

Alright here we go. My opponent begins this round by stating that I lose because I will not post pictures of all three debaters. He goes on to advocate that those debaters must post their own pictures in their profile. This is an unfair burden of proof on my part as it means that he is no longer debating me but me, Kleptin and Logical-master. In other words my opponent assumes we are all the same person. Sadly as we are not all the same person I cannot actually gaurantee that either of them will post their pictures in their profile pictures, however I actually did manage to get them to take the pictures. Thus I will post them all now and if they do see fit at some point they can post them in their profile picture if they desire. Failure to do so should not be counted against me. http://www.freewebs.com... Next onto the points. 1. My opponent advocates in this one that I would only have to spend 6 hours a day online. This is not true and can actually be disproven by this debate itself. My opponent does not take into account the time required to actually formulate arguments, or the research done in order to develop arguments. For this debate alone it took me 2 hours to actually copy and paste every argument the three of us had ever made so I could word count it. It also took me a considerable amount of time to get my hands on those pictures. Then some more time to make a freewebs account dedicated to those pictures. And then a bit more time learning the freewebs interface. All in all this debate itself has so far almost taken me an entire day. My opponent also leaves out the fact that I need sleep, that I eat, use the bathroom, and read books to stay educated on the subjects which I debate. 2. My second point was grouped with my first point and attacked under it. My second point simply stated that we have a combined 131 debates (now 140) and that if I was one person I would be the only person on this site to have such. This would make me quite a bit different than your average john doe. I simply advocate that this is unlikely. 3. My third point in this round still stand as my opponent does nothing to contradict it. My point was that if I was going to make multiple accounts I would make enough to assure that I win every debate. Seeing as being caught with one account as the same consequence of being caught with 10. My opponent advocates this is ridiculous as I would not be able to use so many accounts but I was not advocating I use them all. If my opponents suspicion was true and I actually made multiple accounts to feel like I was the man, John Doe specifically, I could use three to debate and 10 to vote on those debates. This would assure that I felt like the man! THE MAN! 3.5. It should be noted I already am THE MAN! My avatar picture beats out everyone else's easily! Especially the Full metal Alchemist one that I am being forced to discontinue use of until my debate with logical-master concludes. 4. My opponent argues that multiple accounts can slip past the administrators. This is very true. I was not in anyway attempting to disprove this point, I was merely stating that this point decreases the likelihood of the three of us being the same person. I must also push the point that people have reported us as being the same people before which draws more attention than the account my opponent has made. My 5th and 6th points were dropped. Here they are again, "5. My opponent suggests I would open three different accounts so that I could debate myself and have an organized space to do debates. This is untrue as 3 different accounts would only be less organized and would require I log out to change between debates. As far as wanting to debate myself goes I would like to ask my voters to have 30 minutes conversation with themselves at this point and then ask themselves how much fun it was afterwards. Debating yourself, especially in multiple hours sessions would not be fun. 6. Finally my opponent suggests that because we all use a similar style of debate we probably are all the same person. This is untrue, and a fallacy known as ignoring the common cause. The fact that we all use similar strategies comes from the fact that we have all debated before. The fact that we all use similar strategies in now way shows us to be the same person. This would be like saying, "many pro wrestlers use similar strategies thus they must the same person."" Finally I re-advocate my first point from last round. I stated that neither of us can 100% prove this point, it is nearly impossible. Such a 100% proof would first take proof that the world even exists as we see it. As this has not yet been done it is simply our job in this debate to persuade the voters one way or another. I have offered multiple points as to decrease the likelihood that we are the same person to nearly nothing. My opponent on the other hand has managed to do nothing and spent his time attempting to demean my own points instead of making his own. Thus at this point I can only see a vote for Con. Good luck. =)