It is possible that in at least one of the below listed debates my opponent had the advantage.

========= RE Point 1 ========= Once more, regardless of how he phrases it, the fact of the matter was that his argument for possibility was fallacious. PRO has yet to provide a correct argument and simply continues in saying that it's a possibility. Since there's no logical premise, this point fails and is harmful to his case. Next, my opponent dismisses the burden he had set up in the previous round through claiming it was unnecessary on his part as he merely needed to offer the idea. To this, I say that regardless of whether or not the idea is simply put on the table, that doesn't change the fact that it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THIS DEBATE, due to the context (more on that in a moment), hence, you have ABSOLUTELY no reason to take it into consideration when determining your vote. In response to PRO's counter example, it is rather fascinating. That said, it really (REALLY) pains me to say that it reaks of the false analogy fallacy. Not only that, but this argument has cost my opponent this entire debate. Let us examine it for a moment. He says that by my logic, they are not an advantage because everyone can use them. However, can everyone use steroids? First, in many countries, free usage of steroids is illegal and pricey on the black market. As I had pointed out with yahoo accounts, they are free, legal, and accessible to mostly anyone who even uses them. Due to these facts, not everyone has access to steroids, thus, in no way, does my opponet's analogy correlate with my arguments. Second ( AND THIS IS THE CLINCHER FOR THIS DEBATE), my opponent comes out and states that ANYONE can have the potential advantage. This is to be considered a CONCESSION TO MY ENTIRE CASE. How? Well, the thing to keep in mind was that the resolution simply states "advantage. " In round one, PRO never specified what kind of advantage should be taken into account as well as what kind was to be excluded. Since "potential" is a certain kind of advantage and since PRO didn't dispute my usage (without clarification in round 1) until AFTER I had brought up it up (hence moving the goal post fallacy)(and note that he didn't make this argument until round 3), he objectivally loses the debate. ========= RE Point 2 ========= Once more, potential advantage is a form of advantage and is hence fair game in this debate. The fact that my opponent did not clarify in round 1 as well as the fact that he is only disputing this NOW in round 3 (moving the goal post: . http://en.wikipedia.org...), thus this should be enough reason for you to dismiss his advocation to reject my argument on this matter. Next, my opponent tries to get out of producing an argument to show that it's feasible that he has unequal spite on at least one of his debates. He says it's unnecessary for him to produce an argument due to the fact that we are simply talking about possibility. Ladies and gentleman, this is a fallacious argument and is yet ANOTHER MAJOR REASON TO VOTE CON. The fact of the matter is that it's PRO's job is to DEFEND his case. In each of his rounds, you'll note that he has NOT provided an argument to conclude that it's possible that people have spited him. Basically, he has just been begging the question ( . http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Whether or not he or you think it's already possible does not excuse resorting to this fallacy (especially on a debate such as this which is made to discuss whether or not something is possible). The only way to justify such an error would be to have provided an argument on anything being possible (and as you can see, my opponent could not present a premise for such an argument, all the more reason being why his point 2 is to be rejected). I've successfully advocated potential advantage fr spite, so there's no reason for me to take up my opponent's challenge to prove proportional advantage. Next, my opponent attempts to label me as having attempted to back out of my statement, but upon closer inspection, you'll realize that I have done no such thing. Above, I submitted a personal testimony (which my opponent's case consisted of as well). Does this mean I personally condone the usage of such a testimony? Not at all. Rather, the mere usage of my testimony simply cancels out his. This is simply a practice of negating invalid evidence with evidence equally invalid, which is to demonstrae the futility of using invalid evidence. PRO justifies this practice as he does the same in this debate when it concerns opinion (which is usually inadmissible evidence): . http://www.debate.org... Furthermore, you'll note that in no place do I ACTUALLY DENY what I said (hence making my opponent's claim a false dichotomy). I simply state that as evidence in a debate, it is invalid. Given that this is the case, the only one WHO HAS LIED IS NONE OTHER THAN MY OPPONENT. Thus, as my opponent suggested, you should vote against him to discourage him from his foul practices. Also, pay special attention to this quote from one of PROs debates: ". . . where as he has stopped such strategies online I have continued to use them. I will commonly accuse opponents of not upholding burdens of proof where non-exist, advocate sound but faulty ideas to lay voters, and even force my opponent to play by my own rules where none should exist. "( . http://www.debate.org...). This line alone is proof of his MALICIOUS intentions. As for the round 2 statement about other voters not noticing, my opponent did not clarify on this statement in a means that would convey what he is saying now; he clearly states that "other voters have not noticed such a phenomenon" DIRECTLY AFTER referring to both his debates and mine. In short, blame goes to PRO. As for the latest response to my analogy presented in round 1, this is merely a strawman concocted by PRO. I agree that we are debating potential advantage. My argument is that there is EQUAL potential advantage for both sides,thus negating the very notion of one side having the advantage. Also, it is my opponent's downfall to come out and agree with my analogy as you'll note that I don't discuss the advantage being utilized (a key factor to note for my opponent's case). Rather, I'll simply say that both Billy and Robby are now equals. However, this does not conern them actually racing again. For instance, if Robby were to race Billy while merely running at 50% of his capacity for speed, both would still have access to an equal advantage, but it would merely be Robby who was utilizing the advantage. This parallels our current situation in that PRO has access to the advantage of multiple accounts (yahoo. com), has the same capacity for spite as others (which, due to lack of an argument, PRO conceded this point), and therefore had an equal advantage to each of his opponents. ========= Point 3 ========= PRO drops this, thus drops 1/3 of his case. VOTERS: A) My opponent had conceded to potential advantage being the kind of advantage that everyone on debate. org has an equal amount of. This alone wins me the debate due to lack of clarification in round 1 and 2. B) My opponent drops 1/3 or his entire case. C) My opponent never managed to prove that his side of the resolution was possible. Even if you're willing to go so far as to believe that he ended up refuting my arguments, the fact of the matter was that the closest he came to PROVING his side was possible was the instance where he begged the question (which is a fallacy) in an argument that concerns possibility as well as the instance where he resorted to the non sequitur fallacy (the fallacy mooted his argument there). D) My opponent has been advocating that his opponents had utilized the advantage. This was not his job according to the resolution. Thanks for the debate.