Refusal of understanding, Proving the game is not fact.

Here are my first rebuttals."Can not be used as evidence of fact because though the debate was "won" by the one voter, the reason for winning was not a winning of debate but simply because the challenger did not debate. No facts were stated, no evidence was stated, nor any reports of any kind to back up the claim of the game was given in the debate.It can be seen in the vote tab, the voter agreed with con, before and after the debate." Fallacy 1: Aggressive behavior with the person: It is also called as argumentum. Also, it is nothing but the argument process against particular person i.e. hominem. In many debates this type of fallacy gets applied. Since people become aggressive towards anything that they don’t like, it is considered as simple one as compared to the other types of fallacies."Source 3 is a link to a google search of Bryan Mullins own created content. This is not proof or evidence of the roast game being fact or real to begin with."Fallacy 2: Red Herring - These fallacies occur when someone uses irrelevant information to distract from the argument."Source 4 being a youtube video created by Bryan Mullins, showing a lot of claims, none of which have any links to show where the information comes from, no police reports of "children being eaten", nothing to back up any of the claims made in the video. Absolutely nothing."Fallacy 3: Straw Man Fallacy - These fallacies occur when someone appears to be refuting the original point made, but is actually arguing a point that wasn't initially made."Source 6 being a link to a poll where one voter is the creator of the poll, his vote is biased, although counted by the system, it should be void, which makes it an uneven voting system of 9 people, 2 of which voted yes are clearly ridiculous jokes.This again, proves nothing but that there are jokers on DDO.Source 7, another poll about whether the "roast game" should be thought in schools. This is straight up bonkers. If every member of DDO actually voted on these polls, then it might mean something. This sight is not being maintained by administrators any more."Fallacy 4: Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person) - These fallacies occur when an acceptance or rejection of a concept is rejected based on its source, not its merit. That face cream can't be good. Kim Kardashian is selling it. Don't listen to Dave's argument on gun control. He's not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Fallacy 5: Appeal to Ignorance - These fallacies occur when someone asserts a claim that must be accepted because no one else can prove otherwise. People have been praying to God for years. No one can prove He doesn't exist. Therefore, He exists. Since the students have no questions concerning the topics discussed in class, the students are ready for a test. "The main reason as to why this is not a fact is because there are zero police reports about children being eaten by family members. There are zero news articles anywhere about this "game" or it's claims. There is nothing to prove anything this game claims as true.Links to content created by the author of the game to try prove the game is fact is ridiculous, If I said the grass was blue, not green, then made videos and wiki pages about how I believe it is pink and not green, but never once showing any evidence to grass ever being pink, It would be proven wrong pretty quickly. Just like this game."Again, you are committing the fourth fallacy I cited, which is, Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person) - These fallacies occur when an acceptance or rejection of a concept is rejected based on its source, not its merit."The rest of the game continues on with "You respond "So, you eat children for a Christmas roast?" and relies on the reaction to such a ridiculous question. The game must go in a very specific way otherwise the questioner is then forcing answers to make it go the way the questioner wants it to." Fallacy 6: Appeal to Authority - These fallacies occur when someone accepts a truth on blind faith just because someone they admire said it. Katherine loves Tom Cruise. One day, she meets Tom Cruise and he tells her unicorns live in New York City. Without searching to find out if fairy tales have sprung to life in the midtown Manhattan, she believes it to be true. Princess Kate wears Alexander McQueen. Are you trying to say you have better fashion sense than a royal princess? "G2;ɛv=8;d(ə)ns/Submit" is not a source.Therefore, I have debunked your argument.Here are the sources I used to define fallacies and use Con's arguments (bit by bit) as examples of certain fallacies:[1] http://examples.yourdictionary.com...[2] http://typesof.com...