Covenys recent behavior would be a net detriment on ForDebating.Com (his new website)

On to rebuttals1) IntroI'm not sure what he is saying. At the start of his last round, but per the previous conversation and the starting round of the debate, we are debating where he is a net detriment. This is where he will defend his behavior and I will critique it. Voters will review the preponderance of evidence presented and evaluate the debate based on utility. If his behavior is considered more negative than positive, I win. If his behavior is more positive than negative he wins. This is measured in terms of how it will affect for debating.com2) Nothing to loseAgain I'm not sure what he is getting at. He is saying he has nothing to lose so he can't be a net detriment to the site. He has everything to lose. All the "countless dollars" he has spent on the site. I believe he has stated nearly "10 thousand". The amount he has spent is irrelevant, but if his behavior is a hindrance and deterrent to people joining the site, then it is a net detriment. 3) Other People Attacked Him FirstAs I stated in the first round, this is a non-sequitur. What standard I hold others to is not a topic of this debate. Even if he thought TUF was a moderator and even if TUF is acting poorly (he is not) when he listed on the site as a figurehead makes no difference. Their behavior does not impact fordebating.com. Their behavior is not also up for debate, we are debating Coveny's behavior. If Tuf was the owner or creator, or a moderator, then it *could* be topical. Again this debate is about Coveny's behavior and how he responds to people. What prompts him to respond is irrelevant. It's only about his response and how he handles people "attacking him". Someone attacking you does not give you the right to attack them back. Nor is it a viable option as a figurehead and especially so when you are selling a brand. Since this topic is not about DDO, and specifically about Coveny's behavior and how it will negatively impact FDDC then that is all we are going to focus on. 4) Roles of Figure HeadsI never said the president and a store manager are the same, I said their role as a figurehead functions much in the same way. You are expected to respond to certain things in certain ways when you represent something. Whether that is a store or manager. When you are in a position of power, that is the face of something, you have to hold yourself to certain standards. 5) All coverage is good coverage. This is not true at all. This was his only point in round 1 and he carried this over to his #3 point. If you murder someone and get coverage, it's not good nor morally acceptable. If you call a woman and cuntswallowingspermstain as a general manager of a store and get put on the news, it's not positive coverage. You are damaging your brand that you represent. What Coveny has continually failed to do is make an argumentNote: ImportantCoveny has yet to make an argument! This BOP is split to where he must show his behavior will benefit the site, or at least negate my points to show how it would have 0 impacts on the site at all. Even if his argument was true (it's not for reasons I can't cover in this character limit), he has yet to establish a connection to how *his* negative behavior will be good for *his* site. Just because Alex Jones makes a bunch of money off Hillbilly retards with his mindless ranting, does not mean his tactics will work for *your* website. Coveny needs to show a direct correlation between his behavior and how it will positively benefit his site. Again I leave this up for the voters, but read his threads and tell me if you have a positive opinion of him. Again, he says TUF has a positive opinion of him, but I play games with him every night, every day, and half the stuff we talk about is how insane he is. I will not mention the others due to anonymity but I read the voters to decide if his behavior would deter you from his site. Best Wishes and GL on funding a site, when you as the owner come off as a prick