All of emospongebob527's CVBs have Reasonable Grounds

Let's get this started. Since my opponent has chosen the resolution to be ALL his CVB's are reasonable, all I have to do is find one that has questionable reasoning behind it to win. It should be noted I'm not arguing that all of Emo's counters are unreasonable, but there are far too many to leave unchecked. Just so this doesn't become an issue down the line, we'll use the Webster dictionary definition of reasonable which goes as follows:Reasonable [7]: a : being in accordance with reason reasonable theory>b : not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests>c : moderate, fair reasonable chance> reasonableprice> 1. The Last 10Out of the last 10 debates Pro has voted in, 9 of them have been "counter-vote bombs". It raises suspicion that one would just so happen to come across 9 debates in a row that required a CVB. What this suggests is that Pro is actually pro-actively looking for votes to counter, which calls into question his motives. This behaviour suggests that Pro is looking for a loop-hole to allow himself to VB on debates. Instead of actually reading the debate, he picks a vote he feels doesn't have an adequately RFD and over-counters it to support the side he wants to win. 2. Vote BombsIt's worth mentioning that the 1 vote above that is not a counter-vote bomb is, itself, a vote-bomb [2]. Emo voted conduct and spelling/grammar to the pro of that debate with the RDF "joiyhhkbb". While this alone is not a sufficient argument, it serves to further call into question the voting ethic of my opponent. 3. Case by Casea) College Football is better than NFL football [3]This debate was held between ConnorMc (pro) and Wallstreetatheist (con). Pro forfeited all of his rounds. In response,emj32 awarded con all 7 points. This is not an uncommon practice. Emo "countered" this vote by awarding all 7 points to ConnorMc, which would have robbed WSA of his win had emo's vote not been re-countered by user Ron-Paul. Even if my opponent's counter was justified, he was only justified in, at MOST, countering the spelling/grammar vote since con obviously forfeited all of his rounds (which would auto lose him arguments, sources and conduct). To counter so many points that you tie a debate where one debater didn't even argue at all suggests that Emo didn't even read the debate and just wanted to counter something. In this case, Emo's vote is at best unreasonable and at worst a blatant vote-bomb itself.b) Should we drill for oil in the United States? [4]This debate was between Azul145 (pro) and wrichcirw (con). Pro conceded in this debate by saying "Good game. You win". As such, The_Master_Riddler gave con 6 points, all but conduct. Emo took it upon himself to counter TMR's vote by voting pro grammar and sources. Given that Pro conceded in that debate, it is not uncommon for people to vote all but conduct in favour of the winner, but even so, in this debate con was the only one who used sources, so the reason why TMR gave con the "sources" points was completely obvious to anyone who actually read the debate. The only points Emo could justifiably counter would be spelling/grammar. So, once again, Emo's vote is at best unreasonable and at worst a blatant vote-bomb.c) Anarchy is the true means of liberty [5]This debate was between Yarely (pro) and StrkeScale (con). Con forfeited every single round (except the acceptance round obviously). Because of this, everyone voted for pro with the RDF "FF", except for chicken who used "KFC" (obviously just trying to be different by using a DDO inside joke). Emo took it upon himself to counter this. It's obvious why Chicken was giving Pro the argument points to anyone who, once again, actually read the debate (or at east read the other RFD's). There was no need to counter this and therefore doing so is completely unreasonable. This is undeniably a vote-bomb. The really bizarre part is that Citrakayah voted ALL 7 points to pro before emo voted, yet emo didn't feel the need to counter this vote. In this case, the only explanation I can come up with is that Emo voted specifically to spite Chicken. I have no idea why, but it makes no sense to counter a 3 point vote when there is a 7 point vote in the same direction right below you with equally valid RFD. d) Viruses are non living [6]This debate was between jaredbrennan (pro) and myself (con). Pro forfeited the last round, effectively conceding the debate. Several people came in and voted me more points than they gave justification for (since its a painfully obvious vote to anyone who actually read the debate), but Emo took it upon himself to counter one person in particular, utahjoker. Granted, utahjoker has made questionable votes in other debates, but this is not one of them. Once again, it's not unheard of for people to give all 7 points when someone drops all their opponents arguments and forfeits. but even if it was, Emo was not justified in countering all 7 points.Furthermore, this debate had been dead for 2 weeks when Emo voted on it -- which means he's actually digging to find debates he can post "counter vote-bombs" on. This calls into question his motives. Why is Emo looking for debates nobody has complained about for people to counter? I honestly don't know, but my guess is that he's voting for personal reasons and every once in a while he "counters" a an out-of-the-way vote in the hopes that it will stave off any suspicion later. ConclusionThere's more, but this is enough for now. It's clear that several of Emo's "CVB's" are actually vote-bombs under the guise of being counters. in this debate I've established that Emo has questionable voting ethic, that he inexplicably searches for votes to counter, and that he over-counters, effectively making them vote-bombs all the same.The resolution is negated. 1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com... 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. http://tinyurl.com...