The DDO member known as "Lexus" has trolled a substantially large number of members.

Victim #1Member: Proving_a_NegativeLink to the Evidence: (1) http://www.debate.org...(2) http://www.debate.org...Explanation: The intended debate (1) was a humorous "role play" of Cate arguing that He is better than Doge, who is trying to prove the exact opposite. Little did I know, Lexus was going to join. She joined simply to exploit a loophole in the rules and definitions of the debate. She attempted to change the topic to a debate between "a delicacy" and "the chief magistrate of Venice or Genoa" of which one is better. I held my ground, and instead we argued about the true definitions of the words I gave in the context of which I gave them.Lexus also went on to try to further annoy me in a few other places. She gave a poorly constructed RFD for her vote on one of my debates (2), which I argued against. She has since then changed it, but reluctantly. There is evidence still left behind in the comments. I explain their why it is a poorly constructed RFD, which can only be explained by knowing what the debate was and the rules of the debate. Please refer to that. The entire vote was merely a way to agitate me, making me more prone to lash out at her during the Cate vs Doge debate (1). She had given that vote before I had posted my argument for Round 2 of the Cate vs Doge debate (1).Finally, after I admittedly started a private message with her regarding the vote, she began to use horrible logic to justify her RFD on the vote. It was so bad in fact, that after disclosing the conversation, she opted to report me. I am not allowed to disclose the information however. The private message information will not be regarded as evidence against her, but I will bring this paragraph back up later for another victim of Lexus.Victim #2Member: AndyHoodLink to the Evidence: (1) http://www.debate.org...Explanation: The topic appears as though it is a simple discussion of the Earth flatness (1). However, Lexus has a card up her sleeve. After her victim accepts the debate, she surprises him with this: "I thank my opponent and hope that he realized that he is accepting a debate that is within the section of 'religion', which means that all arguments must be based on religious reasoning or religious wording." This is unfair to the victim, who does accept Lexus's silly conditions stated AFTER the debate has started. I would also like to point out that Lexus only uses the "category" strategy when it benefits her. Take a look at my debate (Cate vs Doge). I will give some quotes from Lexus during that: "Regardless of what category this debate is in, we must debate the resolution based on the resolution alone; not outside factors. We cannot put a gay marriage debate in the "technology" area and expect only technological arguments, that is absurd. It was my thinking that you simply put this in the wrong category. It is not my burden to correct what category you put your debates in." and "My opponent claims that because he set this debate in the funny category, doge is defined as a meme... this is fallacious, because this is a serious error in reasoning. It is not up to me to make sure you placed this in the right category. As I said, if someone makes a gay marriage debate and puts it in the "technology" category, one cannot assume that they must only use technological arguments. That would be absurd, so my opponent's claims are unjustified."Victim #3Member: tschukLink to the Evidence:(1) http://www.debate.org...Explanation: tshuck makes the mistake of not defining absolutely every last word in his debate (1) in round 1 before it becomes disputable. Lexus swooped in and caught her prey. She immediately changes the intended meanings of the word so that the opponent has an impossible argument to win. tschuk declares that Lexus is being nonsensical and that he has been receiving explicit private messages from her, trying to obtain information. Later in my own private message, Lexus learns that I play Minecraft account and immediately asks for my Minecraft username, which of course I refused to give her. Again, everything that is contained in private messages is not evidence, since it is subjective. Only I can view what she said, since she is not compliant with me giving out the information contained in the private message.Victim #4Member: gametimerLink to the Evidence:(1) http://www.debate.org...Explanation: gametimer wanted to argue about which had a more deadly bite, a zombie or a vampire in this debate (1). He didn't define exactly what he meant, so yet again, Lexus swoops in and catches the prey. She defines zombies and vampires as ficticious, making the resolution that gametimer wanted to argue impossible to. He gave up immediately after seeing her argument, which I don't personally blame him for.ConclusionI now note that Con must refute at least 2 of the 4 above cases. Good luck to Con. Also, after just briefly looking at your debate history, I can tell your rebuttal will be filled with ad hominems. I ask that you please don't do that, especially since you have already called me a "fool."