The CWO "vote bombed" no one.

To start off by my opponents first rebuttal, I think he will find that immediately after I posted the first quote I corrected who it was by in the comments section. I'm sure he will find that the times match up exactly after posting this debate I corrected this in the comment. I will re correct my statement again here. Above in the first quote I misstated this when I said by my opponent. As a correction it should say by "the_conservative" This was not a "lie" merely a typo. Again I would like to apologize for this innocent mistake that I had immediately corrected and realized after posting. 2. My opponent states that these statements were only referring to training. However I would like to remind the readers of this debate that the messages prior to this referred to "lies and tricks" additionally it says in the same message that "a little taste of there own medicine may be the cure they need" So are lies and tricks to be used in this new training? Additionally the other message that my opponent referred to mentioned "seek out these unfair votes and fight fire with fire" This, unless I am mistaken refers to fighting fire (unfair votes) with fire (unfair votes) not training. Also another member stated you would do so "ONLY when the odds are very stacked against us" Is my opponent suggesting that all these references refer to training and not "vote-bombing" is as defined above. 3. Additionally my opponent posts a message that is a quote of my own that derides the above members who suggested to vote-bomb and suggests to vote based on who was the better debater. I simply do not see where this fits into his argument or what the purpose of this quote is. 4. Next my opponent re-posted all of my arguments and stated that I offered no proof in my debate. I would like to remind my opponent that to refute the resolution that the CWO bombed no one, I must simply show that one person in the CWO engaged in vote bombing. Actual quotes from members stating their intentions, especially "I can guarantee 21 points" is factual evidence. I do not have to produce a video of a user of the CWO actively engaging in vote bombing, I simply have to show reasonable evidence suggesting that such an action was taken. I have shown sufficient evidence that said action of vote bombing occurred. I have shown such evidence denoting that such an action occurred. Additionally I did not just show this in one instance, I have produced multiple quotations from both leaders of the group and from members. I applaud my opponents noble effort to refute my quotations however he (by not denying the validity of such quotations) has conceded that the quotations are indeed valid. Here is a time-line so voters can understand the series of quotations 1. the_conservative requested that members of the CWO vote for his debate "please vote for me on all my debates" He did not suggest that they vote for whomever they thought was the winner, he requested that they vote for him. The conservative was the first leader of the CWO. 2. The second leader of this debate CiRro, said that he could guarantee 21 points (suggestive of close friends or multiple accounts however this is not the purpose of this debate) "No problem. .. . I can guarantee 21 points" 3. In response to the following message posted by joshandr30 (a CWO member) "Together we stand separated we fall. I suggest we do this ONLY when the odds are very stacked against us. Liberals feed on lies and tricks, a little taste of there own medicine may be the cure they need. " My opponent (the third leader of CWO): responded with "I agree with josh" While my opponents evidence of supporting vote bombing is less extreme than the two leaders, it is suggestive of this. 4. I provided 4 observations further suggesting that the actions in the quotations above were followed through. 4. Furthermore in response to my opponents "critique" of my friendly closing statement I would like to state that I never lied, and have corrected my misquote long before he posted his primary rebuttal. I would like to politely ask him that he refrain from comments like "liar" and "shameful" in the future I would like to further remind him that he try to stay on subject with this debate and not make one quarter of his entire refutation an accusation of lying and an off-topic subject that inaccurately suggests I have multiple accounts. If my opponent would like to bring up such suggestions I ask that he simply send me a personal message and not bring it up in this debate. I would like to remind the viewers of this debate that without the following accusations of lying (which was simply a misquote that was immediately corrected in the comments section following my refutation) in this debate my opponents only refutation of my points is this: "this site is strongly left. Obviously that has to "change"", So we decided that we must train newcomers. Notice how my opponent doesn't show the rest of the conversation, or at least the parts that count. "In this conversation the councils purpose was proposed and accepted. the next message from anyone said this: "Sounds good to me" And that came from none other than Scissorhands" Like I said previously, This group isn't simply about voting for other members. It is also about bringing more conservatives to the site and helping other members win debates, not by vote, but by advice. " 3a) My opponent failed to offer proof of any type. He speculated when he said: 1. "fight fire with fire [vote bombing]" 2. "This idea of vote bombing is upheld by all three supposed leaders of this group. Additionally members agree. Below if factual testimony. " 2a) Where did I agree? What additional members? (The_Conservative was kicked out for lack of being on the site or in any messages after the one quoted) 1. I have responded to the misquote 2. As shown above I have given reason why the members quotes was not referring to "training new members" 3. I have shown that at least two of the three leaders have engaged in vote bombing, and I have shown how my opponent (the third leader) agreed with the notion of this if not engaged in it himself. 4. I have posted quotes that my opponent accepted as valid by not refuting the validity of them. 5. I have shown sufficient evidence that not only did members and leaders of CWO intended to engage in vote bombing but have shown by calculative observation the extremely high probability that this did occur 6. My opponent has conceded that the group was about vote bombing when he said "this group isn't simply about vote bombing" This quote suggests that while the group may be about more than vote bombing, vote bombing is included in the purpose of this group. I would like to again remind my opponent that to prove that the CWO engaged in vote bombing I only have to provide sufficient evidence suggesting so. I do not have to "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" seeing as how this is not a murder trial. I do not have to produce a video of the vote bombing. I only have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I have produced quotes which my opponent did not refute suggesting that this was several members and leaders intentions. I have also shown sufficient observations of this occurring in a debate through the demographics of the votes being cast. Therefore I affirm that the CWO did engage in vote bombing and negate that no member of the CWO engaged in vote bombing.