RyuuKyuzo should be allowed in the DDO Debating League

=======Noob Sniping=======Once again, even if I can be called a noob-sniper, that does not mean I'm not also good enough for the league. This is an obfuscation tactic as it shifts the focus from my actual debating skill onto my past opponents' debating skill. Keep in mind that Con concedes that he sees (the potential for) a great debater in me, it's just that I've had no great opponents. In other words, he is keeping me out not due to my skill, but due to the skill level of other people. If you focus on the merits of my debating skill instead of the skill of my opponents (which is the way it should be) then it is undeniable that I should be a member.I invite everyone who feels so inclined to check out my debates for themselves to see if my win streak is merely due to weak opponents, or if my arguments would indeed be able to stand against even great debaters -- a point my opponent has not been able to show wrong.Con claims there is no barrier between me and debating good opponents. If no such barriers exist, then what need is there for the league? Ultimately its purpose is to allow an easier set up for great debaters to debate great debaters -- and in the DDO League thread it's clear that the general consensus is that finding a steady stream strong debating opponents and interesting resolutions is difficult. RoyLatham himself admits this:"I hope it works. It's tough to good debates." [1]If even Roy has this problem, then it's clearly not just me.Go ahead and click to the challenge periods. There are 8 of them (not including me). I am the only currently open challenger who has at least 10 debates under his belt -- and 5 of them have 0 debates. --Short of spam-challenging everyone on page 1 of the leader board (or joining the league), there's not much I can do to improve my situation. I issue challenges to anyone who confronts me (I can't be blamed if no-one con would consider great has done this) and I treat every debate I take as though my opponent will have great skill. After all, being a noob says nothing about your debating skill. I won my first 3 debates, so I always give my noobier opponents the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their skill level and put out the best argument I feel can be made.It ultimately doesn't matter though, because, as previously stated, the focus should be on my arguments, not my opponents' when it comes to judging me for admission.=======Rebuttals Are Most Important=======This is opinion, plain and simple. I could just as easily say that ones prima facie case is the most important since everything in a debate stems from it. He further asserts that my debates have been on uncontentious issues. More opinion. Anyone can click over to my debates and determine for themselves if these topic are worth debating or not. Once again, Con is attempting to judge whether or not I deserve to enter based on the skill level of everyone but me -- and he does this because he knows that if he were to focus on my actual arguments, there would be no room for contention. I would be in. =======Non-contentious issues=======Con states that arguing for eugenics is incredibly hard while arguing against takes little more than fluff and emotion. Honestly, this is insulting. Once again I find myself inviting the voters to see for themselves if what Con says is an accurate portrayal of my debates. See for yourself if my arguments in that debate are little more than fluff and emotion [2], I assure you that this is not the case at all. Con states the following;"If anyone seriously contends this is a highly debated issue, I urge a vote against me."This is where con losses the debate. This issue is nothing BUT highly debated. There is a 3 hour documentary on the series doing nothing but contending the claims of the series [3]. Entire websites have been dedicated to contending this theory, both for and against [4][5][6]. One Dr. Michael Heiser has made his career based on contending the evidence for this theory, which can be seen on his website which he started over a decade ago [7].To say that this issue is not highly or seriously debated is shockingly wrong. People have built their names in the field based on this issue -- and since con has wagered this debate on this issue, he has lost the debate.Con is putting words into Roy's mouth. It should be noted that Roy went on to argue with my opponent in the comments section, so at least Roy felt that this person was worth opening a dialog with. It should be noted that I didn't merely point out the disconnect between my opponent's arguments and his resolution -- I did in fact take on his arguments as well (as Roy said himself). Once again, Con is trying to brush aside MY showcased skill and focus solely on my opponents mistakes. Its easy to say my opponents is a weak debater after he's already been beaten. If con dared to focus on my side of the equation, this debate would be over in my favour instantly -- and he knows this.The point of me bringing up the "name swellness" debate wasn't to showcase a scholarly debate, but a debate with no objectively correct answer that relies solely on debating skill. To argue against this point by saying that the resolution isn't scholarly is to miss the point of me bringing it up entirely.=======Bad opponents=======This was largely dealt with in my first argument of this round. See above.=======I have already won=======I'm running out of space (as I did last round) so I'll pump out one final bullet before turning the debate over to con. I did intend to make more arguments last round, but real estate is limited. Anyway...If at this point you are not already fervently against me on this debate, then it means I have at least held my own in this debate. Consider that my opponent is a member of the league (he started it) and so if I can hold my own against him, then it can be said that I am on par with him in debating skill -- which must mean that I am good enough to join so long as con is considered good enough to join. Even if you aren't impressed by my track record, this debate itself is proof that I have the chops to be in the league. This is a foregone conclusion.Speaking of conclusions=======Conclusion=======My opponent's main argument thought this debate has been attacking my opponents skill level instead of the skill level I showcase in my arguments. Keep in mind, this debate in on whether or not I am good enough to join, not my past opponents'. It should raise suspicion that con's focus is on them, not on me. I have done more than what would be reasonable to expect for me to get into high-profile debates (attempting to join the league among other things). Unless one honestly contends that I should have spent my early time here spam-challenging the locals, arguing against my repertoire is an impotent attack. Even con concedes that I have what it takes (at least in theory), so my admission shouldn't even be debatable unless my past opponent's skill is more important than mine in decideing this, which should not be that case.Furthermore, con has wagered this debate on a point that I've since proved, thereby eliminating him as a candidate for this debate's winner. Finally, even if you simply cannot separate my arguments from the debating skill of my past opponents, this debate alone shows that I am at least the bare-minimum when it comes to required debating skill -- unless con plans to argue that he isn't worthy of being in the league either.That's all fro me. My opponent now has the floor. I would like to thank him for giving me this chance to make my case and I look forward to debating him again in the future -- as a league member.1. http://debate.org...2. http://debate.org...3. http://www.youtube.com... [video]4. http://ancientaliensdebunked.com... 5. http://arcturi.com... 6. http://www.alienswerehere.com...7. http://sitchiniswrong.com...