rezzealaux and The_Devils_Advocate are the same people

Sorry, TDA. I would put more hearts in here but I ran out of space Dx "You claim. .. "The burden of proof I have is to show that I have DID. " Now realize that this is not the burden I placed upon you[…]" > Correct, this is not the burden he placed on me. This is simply how the burden of proof works: You claim X Y Z things, you need to show X Y Z things. My opponent claims two things: The resolution, and what he says in his case. The burden he did place on my is refuted by the UFO example, which I will get to momentarily. > My opponent has the burden of proof placed on him by the resolution he presented. If he fails to meet his burden then he loses the debate – this much TDA understands. What he doesn't understand is that in this debate, there are two layers for burden of proof. The most important / FIRST level is, of course, the resolution. The burden of proof of the resolution rests solely on whoever instigated the debate. The UFO comes in here – If anyone went and started up a debate that said "A UFO landed in my backyard", then that person must show some substantial evidence in order for him/her to win the debate. The contender, or the person that takes up the challenge of the resolution, LACKS such a burden of proof, as he/she is not claiming anything – unless they make an argument that's other than burden of proof, which leads us to the next tier of burdens. The SECOND level of burden of proof is on each of the points we make. This is basic argument construction: claim, warrant, impact. "Warrant" is essentially burden of proof. With this in mind, these are the burden of proofs in this debate: FIRST LEVEL: TDA, SECOND LEVEL: TDA, Me. Even if you disagree with everything I have said in this debate whether it be my DID or anything else and think that I have met none of the burdens placed on me by the arguments I've made, if TDA does not provide you with any evidence on how we are different people, you still default vote for me because he fails to meet the resolution. > Abuse is not a voter anymore, as we have had this nice sub-debate that was dedicated to burden of proof (Indeed, the subject that has taken up the most space of each of my past two rounds). And since burden of proof still holds true and there are no other refutations TDA makes against it, every point I've made above stands true. > As for evidence for my DID, I already gave reasons as to why that even if I got together all my forms and scanned them in or took a picture, none of it would matter because this is the internet, where anything and everything has the probability of being photoshopped and therefore dismissed. This was dropped by TDA. "Now for DID vs. Schizophrenia (that would be an interesting fight. .. ). Many of the symptoms are the same including depression, social withdrawal, and attitudes that are opposite from the other. This comes from your own evidence. So use the same argumentation here as there, and since you didn't argue against it, it still stands. " > I'd like everyone to pause for a moment and notice that what TDA claimed last round as "The real meat of the debate" has now been dropped by him. > Done? Now we'll be using the same format from the definitions refutation to take out this point. He says that "Many of the symptoms [of DID and Schizophrenia] are the same", and goes on to list some of those symptoms. The problem with this, however, is that I don't need to have all of those symptoms in order to be said to have DID. Last round I gave an example about how a Cup Noodles can be said to be filled with noodles even though it only qualifies through one of the acceptable definitions. This was dropped by TDA. So, we can use the same line of reasoning here – I don't need to have all of the symptoms that DID can cause in order to be diagnosed with DID, I only need a certain few. Those certain few that are required are not "depression, social withdrawal, [or] attitudes that are opposite from the other", as TDA would want you to believe, but rather, "•The presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states, each with its own relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and self. •At least two of these identities or personality states recurrently take control of the person's behavior. •Inability to recall important personal information that is too extensive to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness. •The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e. g. , blackouts or chaotic behavior during Alcohol Intoxication) or a general medical condition (e. g. , complex partial seizures). In children, the symptoms are not attributable to imaginary playmates or other fantasy play. [1] A patient history, x-rays, blood tests, and other procedures can be used to eliminate symptoms being due to traumatic brain injury, medication, sleep deprivation, or intoxicants, all of which can mimic symptoms of DID. [39]" (From Wikipedia) Therefore even though I didn't refute TDA's argument itself, I destroyed its foundation and therefore the argument cannot "stand". "According to your wikipedia article, one of the most common ways to cure DID is to reunite dissociated identities. " > I never claimed that we would actually merge back together. Disregard everything under this point. "Once again according to your article this is false. Dissociated identities of those with DID often are completely opposite and do not like each other. Just one more error you have made in your last round. " > Refer to the official requirements for diagnosis and the definitions refutation I reiterated earlier. > His loss of this point also means that I still actually care about him <333 "This does in fact show how we aren't the same person. You regard me as a seperate entity to yourself. By showing difference you acknowledge difference. " > Again, I acknowledge difference of identities, not that we are entirely different in the sense that we have different physical bodies. This refutation covers "feminism" as well. "1. When you realize that I have continued to debate on this site, you realize that we aren't different identities of the same body as once the host realizes this, they stop being different identities. " > This is unsourced and not in the Wiki article. "2. My opponent recognizes my being a different entity. " > This does not mean that we are different people; we are still the same person. He dropped this "main meat" last round. "3. The most important reason to vote for me today is that my opponent has failed to uphold the burden that he has placed upon himself and the burden that is naturally his from accepting this debate. When that happens, you look to the argumentation that I have provided that shows that he probably doesn't have DID, that I am not another identity of his, and that he recognizes my entityness (you didn't think it would come out twice in this debate did you? ). " > This was explained earlier in the Burden of Proof explanation. Even if I fail everything I've attempted to prove, you still vote for me at the end of the day because my opponent fails to prove the resolution – the highest level of the burdens, and a statement which he has claimed. So, in short: 1) We both have burdens of proof, but the resolution's burden is on TDA. He has not fulfilled this burden, and does not even attempt to do so. This destroys his attempt to win based off my supposed lack of achieving my burdens of proof, regardless of if I have actually failed or not. 2) TDA dropped "the definition of person" sub-debate, which means that as long as any one of those definitions are fulfilled, we are the same person – and one has been met; we are both within the same physical body. 3) He has not in any way shown that my DID symptoms are contradictory to my claims. 4) I still love TDA even though he's a separatist.