THE OFFICIAL IZBO TRIAL; Resolved: Izbo10 should be permanently banned

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I apologize for letting this trial get side-tracked into debates about zombies. I'll try to keep this brief for your convenience. == Rebuttal == R1) Izbo says that most people on this board are Christians DDO user statistics are useless. They are measuring thousands of people of who signed up, posted once, and then left the site. The user statistics should generally reflect the averages for the English speaking world. However, among *active current members*, there are definitely more atheists than theists. Izbo claims that Cerebral is a closet theist because of some of the arguments he has advanced against izbo. Apparently izbo has never heard of the term "devil's advocate." Cerebral is most definitely an atheist. R2) Izbo says that I don't understand the word "or" Semantics debates aren't all that fun, even when you're engaging in them. I don't care to start a spontaneous semantics debate here. I merely was showing you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that JustCallMeTarzan is anything but stupid. If izbo wanted to have a semantics debate with him, he should have done so in a civilized manner. R3) Zombies Izbo purports that his genius will be a great loss to this site. Yet somehow he fails to grasp the argument that not all people who come back to life are zombies because a necessary condition for being a zombie is possessing diminished mental faculties. For example, on the television program "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," Buffy dies and is brought back to life by her friend (played by Alyson Hannigan) who is a witch. The resurrection spell succeeds, and Buffy is *not* a zombie. Only spells gone *wrong* produce zombies. If all undead are zombies, then is a vampire a zombie? Izbo's unwillingness to address the above argument is typical. Many of his opponents are frustrated that he refuses to answer rebuttals to his arguments. If he is truly here to teach and engage with people, he would attempt to address the arguments against him rather than resorting to insults and cussing.* *It is worth noting that izbo cusses so often, he has found just about every conceivable way to thwart the curse filter. It is further worth noting that I have had zero interactions with izbo prior to this debate and have done nothing to provoke him, besides accepting the prosecutor's position at innomen's urging. Yet izbo still finds it necessary to call me "fucktarded." This is clear and convincing evidence that he does not actually *want* people to engage his arguments. R4) Is this a morality debate? I suppose izbo could make it one, if he wanted to argue for moral nihilism as a justification for why he shouldn't be banned. But he refuses to endorse this ethical position, merely attributing it to a "prosecutor" who has since stepped down. This is the definition of a straw man argument: izbo is building a straw man of moral nihilism, which I never argued for, and then is beating this poor straw man half-to-death. I never argued for moral nihilism in this debate. Izbo has even complimented me on the ethical system I seem to endorse by arguing that he has harmed the site. Izbo said to me, via a recent PM, "Though I do have to give you credit, you are almost down the path of moral objectivism through facts about harm and benefit to society." Izbo, as a moral objectivist, thus clearly agrees that if I prove that he is harming the site, then I prove that he ought to be banned. R5) Forum Activity Izbo says it's not his fault that people are too stupid to "understand" his points. However, to izbo, "understanding" seems to mean posting merely, "yes izbo, you're so right." Questioning izbo's assertions would count as "not understanding," and thus stupidity. Yet, the whole point of a debate site is to engage with people who disagree with you and try to convince them. The point of a debate site is *not* to help you find people of differing opinions so you can insult them and their beliefs. R6) Vote bombing Izbo claims he has only vote bombed once without reading. The copious evidence I presented in Round 1 says otherwise. I presented 12 individual cases of vote bombing in Round 1, although there are many more cases if you care to browse izbo's voting record. For example, he vote bombed InquireTruth, one of the most respected theists on this site, at the last second resulting in InquireTruth losing. InquireTruth got quite upset and has not been very active on the site since then. R7) Conversation with innomen All I see in the PM's that izbo has presented is more trolling and semantics by izbo, as well as a refusal to actually engage in a debate, which is the whole point of this site. This clearly shows that izbo no longer cares to use this site for its intended purpose but would rather troll the forums and harass people via PM. I'll present my closing arguments in the last round.