The ranking system should be abolished

Rebuttal time! Rebuttal: Pro's 1st point: "Con is agreeing with Mikal on religion. " I said that Mikal refuted the Instigator's argument, albeit not thoroughly. I said nothing about religion being good or bad, nessicary or irrelevant. Pro has set up a "straw man" out of my argument and refuted said straw man. (In a debate, a straw man is when you over-simplify, or misinterpret an argument, and refute said misinterpretation) "Thus, you can't use other previous posts as a defence on Mikal's behalf. " Perhaps you didn't notice Mikal's actual argument? I pointed it out for you, and the readers of this debate, so it would be easier for everybody. And I'm not just "defending" Mikal, I'm refuting your source, and arguments. Pro's 2nd Point: "Life ain't a video game, and it sure ain't political" "On inspecting your debating history; I can see that the vast majority of your debates are about on-line gaming. " Is that so? Let's see. .. "Science is False". .. "If I am Oppressed, I am right, even when I'm wrong". .. "Is God the Loving Creator of the Universe? ". .. "All drugs should be legalized". .. I'm pretty sure those aren't video games. "Thus, you are not a serious debater of serious matters, but just a debater of silly topics of little moral or social importance. " Actually, contrary to Pro's remark, I tend to debate on controversial matters, or just matters I feel are downright incorrect. I would also point out Pro's ad homonym attack. "Con enjoys Nintendo, and debates about Five Nights at Freddy's. Therefore, he isn't taking this debate seriously. " He attacks my personal characteristics instead of attacking my actual arguments. Also, if you couldn't tell, I am taking this seriously. I even said in round 1 "This debate is highly controversial to this entire website, and will be taken seriously by Pro, Con, voters, and maybe even the staff. " My motive? You are against the Rankings of this site. More specifically, the top 10 users in the rankings. I'm not a top 50, but to accuse great people of being criminals? Not in my world! Pro's 3rd Point: "High Score! Con's motive, it is. " "It appears that your main area of interest and concern is the fantasy world of gaming. " Is it? I enjoy debating as well, and correcting people who have gone astray with nonsense. "In this world, you would accumulate points and ranking as you progress through the various levels. " This statement isn't relevant. Sure, I play my Super Mario Bros, and I do win. But what does this have to do with anything? Pro continues with "Thus, we could say that you are programmed to accumulate a form of 'cyber gold' called ranking points. ". Have I been going for the top 50? No, I'm not. To the contrary, I'm making sure other users of this site know their logic isn't correct. Actually, that's almost the definition of "debating" isn't it? I simply debate because I enjoy it. Are my motives suspicious? Let's run this through: P1: Pro thinks the DDO rankings are filled with criminals. P2: Con likes winning video games, and is a user of this debate. C1: Therefore, Con is suspicious objecting to Pro. This is an argument made out of an ad homonym, which never works. Pro's 4th Point: "Pro defends his case" "This (Pro's controversial debates) generates many prejudices and biasses which results in emotional responses to logical ideas. " And my arguments aren't logical? Even when I debate on video games, it's still a valid argument, supported with evidence. "Thus, your ranking progression is irrelevant to this topic, because you have not used serious subject matter in your discussion topics. " Coming from his round 3 argument, which came from his round 2 ad homonym. I said nothing about how I wanted to be better than Danielle or anything, just asking you if the top 5's I listed contain criminals. And he still goes on with his ad homonym, saying I don't want to lose my ranking, therefore I'm protecting the rights of the ranking system. This argument is 1) unsupported, and 2) an ad homonym. Now, of course, with my final argument. Point 2: Con's unrefuted arguments. I have shown Pro some users, and asked him whether they're criminals or not, which Pro suggests. Pro just ignores it and attempts to draw suspicion to my accepting of this debate. Sure, I *could* be wanting to become a good debater and have the highest elo, but that doesn't change my arguments' validity. My arguments stand, and Pro left his Burden of Proof unfulfilled. Point 3: No proof of criminals. I asked Pro many times in round 2 to provide more examples of people winning debates by doing nothing. He never even addressed why everyone is a criminal, just that he thinks Mikal didn't deserve that 1 victory. Again, Pro was arguing something highly controversial, and never showed why he was right, except for that one debate, which I explained why it doesn't prove anything. Conclusion: Pro had the Burden of Proof, but never fulfilled it. When I backed him into a corner, he resorted to ad homonym attacks, and claimed that I wanna be the very best, like no one ever was. To catch them is-- sorry. ;) But yeah, Pro claims that I an arguing against him because I want to win. This is not the case, as my motive is to prove Pro wrong.