Mirza engaged in strategic voting behavior on bluesteel's debate against innomen

Pro has neglected several accusations he made against me, and he has continuously not only misinterpreted my case, but in fact also misrepresented it. Pro has also dropped several arguments. Claims I called him a coward and attacked his character. He did not respond to my rebuttal. Claims he wanted to use this debate to defend himself; not even one word was dedicated to his defense. On the contrary, he attacked my character in various ways. Claims I 'conceded' that ad hominems do not count. This is not true. If telling him that he misinterprets what I say is an ad hominem, then he calling me a liar means he loses more conduct since that is a bigger accusation. That is not conceding to anything. Accuses me of insulting him many months ago, but he does not want to look for evidence. I've never had any big argument with him, let alone having insulted him. This is another lie. These are a few examples of how highly absurd and inconsistent Pro's case is. I will get more into this.-- Rebuttals -- R1: PlausibilityPro tries to use the Occam's Razor explanation of my argument. He absurdly claims that my defense is the most complex explanation. I can easily make a case for all his attacks that will seem far more complex, but that's unnecessary. Take this into consideration: he spent hours writing random accusations in the thread he linked, thousands of words in this debate, all to prove that I strategically voted for Innomen in his debate. Yet he summarizes that with "Mirza saw an opportunity to vote for Innomen and waited until the last moment to do so." That's rubbish. My case can be explained in simple terms: I countered a votebomb temporarily, came back late and voted when I had both read the debate and judged it.What's more, notice how Pro in his explanation (a) entirely disregards that I lost my Internet connection, have a habit of postponing, etc.R2: Ad hominemPro claims I conceded that ad hominems are irrelevant. I challenge anyone to tell where I did that. He tries to escape the fact that I backfired when he accused me of making an ad hominem. I told him he misinterprets my case, he told me I lie. The latter is a far worse ad hominem, and thus a stricter violation of conduct.Moving on, Pro defended his rage in his debate against Danielle by saying, "I had just joined the site and got upset specifically with Mirza's RFD for the sources point: 'bluesteel cites a book.'" I cannot believe Pro tries to get around this too! He raged before I even commented on the debate (back than there was no voting RFD), and now he claims he specifically got upset with my RFD. There was no RFD. And even if there were, it would come after he raged. http://tinyurl.com...Another example of Pro's terrible way of misrepresenting and misinterpreting anything in this debate.R3: No RFDPro yet again does not understand what I am telling him. He claims that my RFD was what I wrote in the voting section. I said too many times that it is not my actual RFD. I said that I would write an RFD in the comments section, but did not do so because once I gave my vote, Bluesteel and his many supporters attacked me heavily in the thread he linked. I thereby prioritized defending myself rather than giving an RFD. "you're @sshole. fvck you. You basically admit to doing this because you didn't want to see me win and would rather see me pissed off." Sentences like this one made me go defensive. I found zero value in writing an RFD to his debate after reading nonsense like this. Moreover, Pro has used very lousy tactics to make me look like the bad guy. For instance, in his insulting thread I challenged him and many of his supporters for an official debate. Tvellalott accepted the challenge. However, Pro did not. I was completely fine with Pro never accepting my challenge. However, once Pro (almost a week after) challenged me, only a few hours after he instigated the challenge, he started mocking me with a petition: http://tinyurl.com...;Yet Pro thinks I should have spent time writing an RFD for his debate. He can think again.R4: Forgot GileandosPro falsely claims that the best tactic for me is to say that I forgot Gileandos' vote. This argument of his is yet again filled with gibberish claims. First, I did not say I contacted Gileandos or ApostateAbe on Pro's behalf. I said that I wrote in the comments section that I did not want to engage in activities with them, after I realized that Gileandos' countered my own counter-votebomb (which was his fault). Second, I did not block any of the users, nor did I ever argue with them in the comments section after I told them that I did not want to talk to them anymore. Pro obviously has no clue about what was going on.Additionally, although I realized that Gileandos cancelled my vote-counter, I did not want to change my vote because I wrote in the temporary RFD that I had not read the debate, and I will change my vote only at the point where I've read the debate fully. And, due to good reasons, I could not vote too early - but I made sure I could read, judge, and vote. I did all that. But, when I changed my vote to a real one, I did it because I kept my promise that I would vote for real. I had remember that ApostateAbe changed his vote (which was a good thing from my side), but I forgot that if I cancelled my counter to his vote, Gileandos' vote would give an unfair advantage to Innomen because he countered my counter-vote to ApostateAbe. This is perfectly honest, and Pro has no evidence to show that I deliberately voted for Innomen by knowing that Gileandos' vote counted (and was giving an unfair advantage to Innomen).Moreover, I told Innomen and everyone else in Pro's thread that I would have nothing against my vote being removed, thus making Bluesteel the real winner. In fact, last week I personally contacted Juggle (no success yet) and told them to remove my vote. If my vote was strategic, I would defend it as much as I defend myself now. But I did not. It was an honest vote, but based on a mistake (and Gileandos' improper handling of my vote - blame him).Also, Pro talks about how psychologists would interpret my words as lies. This is rubbish. To say "I genuinely believe" is the exact same thing as saying that "I know for sure." For instance, I often say "I believe in God" even though I clearly do not mean "I think God might exist." I mean that I for sure know God exists.R5: ImprobabilityCon 'thinks' I logged on very early and saw Zetsubou's vote as a good opportunity to make a strategic vote. Pure babble. There's zero evidence for this. As for motive, I clearly said in the comments section that I would get back to other arguments. Now, I had no reason to vote for Innomen for any personal gains. I got nothing out of what I did. Innomen's relations with me would never change due to a vote for him.Furthermore, Pro totally dropped my argument regarding the user Danielle. She and I have had many discussions and tense situations, yet I challenge anyone to find a place where I voted against her. In fact, I voted for her even in a debate with RoyLatham, whom I have neutral relations with. I've never argued with him, and he contributed to helping me change my views on say, 9/11 conspiracy (I'm not a truther anymore). Pro offered no reply to why I never voted against Danielle, but he tells me that I voted against him due to nonexistent hatred. That's nonsense. R6: Admission of guiltPro says that recommending him for a cabinet position is not equivalent to liking him. I clearly said that he was eloquent, interesting, etc. That was the description I gave for Kinesis. He's telling me this is hatred? I even said it just days before voting.Finally, Pro keeps misinterpreting my words. I merely meant that Pro would not find it unfair if he won the way Innomen did, hence I told him that he would be happy winning in an unfair way, while losing makes him rage childishly. Period. Pro accepted no solution. The resolution is negated.