All of emospongebob527's CVBs have Reasonable Grounds

Seeing as my opponent couldn't be bothered to come to his own defence on a debate he challenged me to in the forums, he has dropped all my R2 arguments. I will now proceed with my R3 arguments. Pro is welcome to pick up these arguments in a later round, but that will be virtually impossible given the character limit.1. Another VB [1]Since the last round, my opponent decided to counter Stephen_Hawkins in a debate called "Star Trek technology is achievable". This debate was between Heineken (pro) and philochristos (con). The first vote was from rationalmadman who voted 1 point (conduct) in favour of con with the RDF "Boring". Stephen_Hawkins countered this vote with the RDF "counter idiotmadman", to which Emo re-countered (making it a vote-bomb) with the RDF "Counter Stephen_Hawkins for countering a person that didn't even vote." -- apparently completely oblivious to the fact that Stephen was merely insulting rationalmadman, who did in fact vote. This suggests that either emo was unimaginably careless in his voting (which would mean it did not have reasonable grounds) or it was an intentional attempt to re-establish rationmadman's vote-bomb. In either case, we have a debate where emo's "counter" undeniably had unreasonable grounds.2. Pro Admits I'm Right [2] [3]Shortly after I posted my R2 arguments, my opponent went on a voting spree where, instead of doing full counters like I was criticising him for last round, he only did partial counters. This immediate change in behaviour proves that he not only read my arguments from last round, but that he agrees with them as he has been acting on my criticisms. 3. Suspicious Coincidences [4]As I said, shortly after posting my R2 arguments, pro went on a voting spree. Every vote was a counter, and every one was against the same user, The_Master_Riddler. This is suspicious for several reasons;1. TMR always votes the full 7 points with an absurdly lacking RFD, which makes him the perfect user to counter2. He also went on a voting spree right after I posted my arguments3. Emo was always the first on the scene. Always. Several times within the hourIt's pretty convenient that another user just happened to give emo several reasons to post a bunch of vote-bombs just as emo needed something to push all the votes I linked to last round back a few pages on his "voted on" list. It also conveniently gave Pro the chance to post CVB's in-line with the criticism I posted last round, making it look like he really does post reasonable counters. My suspicion is that either TMR is a multi of Emo's, who he uses to give him an excuse to counter, or just an ally of Emo's whom emo uses for the same reason. Obviously I can't prove this, but either I'm right or this is simply an enormous coincidence. I'll let the voters decide which is more likely. ConclusionEmo has already proven that he has no interest in taking part in this debate, which is especially dishonourable as this debate both calls into question his character and was a debate emo instigated in the forums. Since my last round's argument have gone unchallenged, I've already established that not all of pro's counters have reasonable grounds, so pro has already lost this debate. In this round I've further bolstered my original argument, but also I've established that pro acknowledges and admits he was mistaken by his own actions. I've also called into question the suspiciously convenient voting patterns of the one person emo counters the most. When all the evidence is considered, this isn't even a debatable issue. It is plain and simply me informing the reader that emo is in the wrong, something that pro has not even attempted to counter, let alone successfully refute.The resolution is negated.1. http://debate.org... 2. http://debate.org...3. http://debate.org... 4. http://debate.org...