You Are RationalMadman

Thanks for your sorry attempt at trolling, RationalMadman. I will now refute the failure that is you.I should emphasize the fact that RationalMadman has already conceded the resolution in the first sentence of the previous round. I quote: "[...] I am Rational Madman."RationalMadman has also conceded that he exists. He also makes a (characteristic) attempt at trolling by posing the question, "[Is] there proof that [I] exist?", then proceeding to answer his own question. According to RationalMadman, there is probably proof that exists. Voters should take 'probably' to mean 'certainly.' I will now proceed to prove the resolution further, beyond a rational doubt.Argument from opponent's own wordsP1: My opponent said, and I quote: "Am I Rational Madman? [...] Iam [...]"P2: "I am" is not referring to the God of the Israelites.P3: Heck, it may very well be; for all I know, RationalMadman and God are one and the same. Thus, my opponent is RationalMadman (and also God, but that's irrelevant).Argument from the elephant in the roomP1: There is an elephant in the room.P2: RationalMadman is an elephant.I think its safe to assume that you are in the room, and not outside of it. I also assume that you are an elephant; a valid assumption, I hope you agree.Thus, you are RationalMadman.Argument from non-contradictionP1: You are RationalMadman.P2: Any conclusion besides the realization that you are, in fact, RationalMadman, makes a contradiction in my flawless argument.Thus, you are RationalMadman.Argument from status quoP1: The status quo says that all new users are the reincarnation of RationalMadman.P2: My opponent just registered his account less than 30 minutes ago.Thus, my opponent is a new user, and therefore, he is RationalMadman.Argument from the obviousYou are obviously RationalMadman.Argument from RationalMadmanOh wait, RationalMadman doesn't argue, he only trolls.Argument from madnessP1: There's a madness spreading in the forums that everyone is RationalMadman. (1)(2)(3)P2: This madness is rational.Thus, you are RationalMadman.Argument from the LatentDebaterP1: LatentDebater says that Imabench is RationalMadman. (4)P2: LatentDebater is always right.Imabench is RationalMadman. It logically follows that Imabench lied in claiming to be a bench, since he is actually RationalMadman. If such a reputable user lied about not being RationalMadman, then everyone who claims to not be RationalMadman is a liar.Thus, everyone is RationalMadman. Including you.Argument from myselfP1: I'm RationalMadman.And I'm telling you straight up that you are RationalMadman too.Argument from an open mindIf you have an open mind, you are open to the fact that you are RationalMadman. If you claim you aren't RationalMadman, you are a bigot and a liar and a turd and RationalMadman.Argument from contradictionP1: RationalMadman is a contradiction.P2: RationalMadman made that contradiction when he signed up under that name.Therefore, RationalMadman is a contradiction maker.P2: You aren't RationalMadman.If you aren't RationalMadman, then you are a contradiction maker, because its pretty freaking obvious that you are RationalMadman. Therefore, you are RationalMadman.The problem of many RationalMadmans argument A conscious RationalMadman will create doubt to the individual that his thoughts are artificial or simulated. There is no difference between a conscious RationalMadman and sufficiently convincing simulation of RationalMadman. If you doubt that you are a simulation of RationalMadman, than you must be RationalMadman.Everyone, including RationalMadman, vote PRO! Thanks RationalMadman for this eye-opening debate.(1) http://debate.org...(2) http://debate.org...(3) http://debate.org...(4) http://debate.org...