Mirza did not engage in strategic voting behavior on bluesteel's debate against innomen

-- Forfeit --Con forfeited the previous round. That's a violation of conduct. Furthermore, he has made me unable to respond to any of his arguments, so I get absolutely no chance at showing how easy it is to debunk all his personal arguments against me. However, I can figure what some arguments might be, and I will address them below.-- Rebuttals --R1: Conduct lossIn the comments section, Bluesteel accused me of deliberately changing the resolution. It's called paraphrasing. The meaning is exactly the same, i.e., I did not vote strategically against Bluesteel / for innomen's favor (or his benefit). The difference is zero, except in the language. Do not take "full resolution" to only mean more words added to it. That's just rubbish.R2: Logically fallacious argumentBluesteel made an argument in the comments section that I knowingly voted in the last round because that way, he could not counter Gileandos' vote. This is a syllogism for the claim:P1: Mirza voted in the last minute.P2: There was not enough time to counter Gileandos' vote.C: Therefore, Mirza voted in the last minute to prevent canceling Gileandos' vote.This is a logical fallacy known as non-sequitur. [1] The conclusion does not follow whatsoever. Consider changing the conclusion to anything else: P1: Mirza voted in the last minute.P2: There was not enough time to counter Gileandos' vote.C: Therefore, Mirza forgot that Gileandos' vote still counted.P1: Mirza voted in the last minute.P2: There was not enough time to counter Gileandos' vote.C: Therefore, Mirza did not have time to realize that he should allow room for more votes.Ad infinitum. To narrow everything that happened to "Mirza purposely did not allow a counter-vote to Gileandos' votebomb" is unreasonable and pretty much idiotic. Although in a non-sequitur argument, the conclusion could easily be true, in this case Con has to prove that it is true. Assuming he uses this claim against me, he has no evidence for the conclusion being true, and his entire argument relies on certain premises being connected to the conclusion. Clearly they are not.-- Conclusion --It is very apparent that I have not engaged in systematic voting of any sort in the debate in question. What might seemed to have been systematic voting does not mean that it really was. One can claim that I should not have voted at all, or that I should not have countered anything I considered a votebomb, but that is not equivalent to claiming that my 3-point-vote was systematic. I could never have predicted how a handful of other people would vote, and that way keep a 7-point vote ongoing for about three days before finally switching it to 3 points, i.e., the final vote. To think I could predict that several other people would vote in such a way that my vote would give Innomen the lead of only one point and thus make him win is utterly ridiculous.I have no reason to systematically votebomb a debate where neither of the contestants have a problem with me (prior to the end of the debate), I have no real opinion on the resolution (nor any bit of bias toward either Pro or Con position), and finally, where I get nothing good out of it. The resolution is affirmed - vote fairly.References:[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...