Seabiscuits account was unjustifiably closed.

On Contributing nothing:Pro has given us some quotes from Seabiscuit, to show how he tries to "secularize dogma". All these quotes show is that seabiscuit had a large vocabulary, which he did. However the very evidence my Opponent herself links verifies my claim! Look at the first debate linked by Pro. Here is seabiscuits enitre final round:"If you are going to vote, after reading all this, you should be able to make your decision regardless of my rebuttal. " [1]During this debate, Sea-biscuit completely ignored his Opponents arguments, and as I've said before, only managed to show off his impressive vocabulary. Four of the five voters in that debate specified that they voted based on the fact that seabiscuit completely ignored his Opponent. Double_R's (who seabiscuit later votebombed in revenge) RFD essentially sums up the debate, and if the judges have any questions I encourage them to view the debate in its entirety. "Pro quite amazingly ignored nearly every peice of Con's case. All Pro did was try to show that Con's case was not enough to affirm his resolution which was not at all successful. Con may have had the BoP but that doesn't mean that Pro can just sit back and say "not good enough" to each argument and expect a win. "As stated before, seabiscuits contributations to this site were non existent. The second example given by Pro show us, once again, seabiscuits excellent vocab. However, roughly translated into common English, the statement reads as "the progressive collection of those supporting equality have been forcing this leveling where all people despite their self-satisfied privileges are for some reason forced by the poor that through oppression are conditioned to obtain there own astute abilities. " This statement not only makes no sense (and if you do not believe my definitions, I encourage you to look them up yourself), it had very, very little to do with the topic at hand, and utterly failed to support seabisuits "argument"Seabiscuits first debate did not challenge dogma, people argue over which sex is more intelligent all the time. Vote Bombing:Pro again tries to say that voting is subjective. Look at the rules of this site that I have shown, and you'll see that it is NOT. Pro ignores my example of how seabiscut's justification for his voting decision supported MY side, thus showing even more that this was a votebomb. Pro says that an impartial vote is not possible. That may be true, but voting on your personal opinion of a person is quite clearly a vote-bomb. She has dropped every single example given of Seabiscuits votebombing, so please extend them all. Pro also once again charges me with revenge-bombing seabiscuit. Pro claims that my RFD was "argumentation was astoundingly better for Con than for Pro. " and that I have recently changed it. Pro is either mistaken, or down-right lying. Look at my vote on that debate (men vs. women) and you'll see that it was cast 3 days ago, before this debate started. Multi-accounting:Pro claims that she is not a multi-account of Seabiscuit, but rather his sister. Since neither of us can empirically prove our claims, I ask the judges to vote on whichever one is more logical. I will now show why my theory is more logical. This account was only instigated 3 debates, the minimum required to vote[2]. All three could be considered spam debates. This account voted for seabiscuit on all of his debates. The arguments provided by this account prior to this debated would all be consistent with the argumentation of a troll (if you disbelieve this, please by all means look at my Opponents account. ) The logical thing to believe is that this is either A: An account created by seabiscuit in order to troll, thus justifying his banning. Or B: This was an account created by seabiscuit to vote him up in all his debates (which he did), thus justify his banning. ConclusionI have shown that Seabiscuit contributed nothing, votebombed, was a jerk, and likely had a multi-account to troll/votebomb his debates. Recall that the resolution states "unjustifiably", not "unjustly". Therefore, if a justification exists, which I have shown that it has, than this resolution is negated. Even if you believe my opponent, and think that seabiscuit was unjustly banned, he was not unjustifiably banned. Please vote Con. VotersConduct: Tie please, we were both fineS/G: Please put either a tie, or vote for me. My Oponent had a few formatting and grammar mistakes but nothing major. Arguments: I have convincingly shown that the was a justification behind Seabiscuits banning. Sources: Please put a tie, or vote for me because I used slightly more sources than my Opponent. Sources:1. . http://www.debate.org...2. . http://www.debate.org...