Lannan13's a bad troll

My opponent has given me two burdens. One, to prove he's a troll. Two, to prove he shouldn't be on this site. This is a bit unfair and contradictory to standard debate setup, thus I would ask that if I prove one of the two resolutions, arguments should be voted tie. I think this is reasonable. I request my opponents response on this. If he does not respond that means he concedes it. Taking the definition of troll literally, as few people do, just about every person is a troll. Troll according to the urban dictionary - One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing disruption or argument. [one change] This basically applies to everyone because everyone sometimes posts deliberately provocative messages with such intentions. Just ask yourself the question, do you ever post deliberately provocative messages? Anyone being honest would say yes. Thus if we take the definition of troll literally we are all trolls. And I will add that sense this is a debate, taking definitions literally is wholly expected and acceptable. My opponent does not post in an honorificabilitudinitatibus way. His manner is in fact often inaniloquent, thus making it further obvious. And I will add there is nothing to suggest con is extremely prone to lethologica. On whether my opponent should be on this site. I will present the following arguments. 1) There is almost always a more preferable place to be in than the one you are currently in. 2) If there is a more preferable place to be in you should go to that preferable place. 3) There is a more preferable place for the con to be in than this site. 4) Con should not be on this site. Defense: The egistemology of psychological seignertude reveals that every beings want is naturally pushed towards being ergosterolical. For example my opponent may have tarantism, but does not know it. Or maybe tibialoconcupiscentism. My opponent could lasciviously be watching women put on stockings instead of reading boring debates on ddo. We do not know. My opponent does not know. There are countless other possible preferable states and my opponent cannot know them all. Thus in some way or the other it would be preferable if he was not on this site. To defend my argument further; Optimate plains = a, and un-optimate plains = b If not a than b If not b than a Therefore a, b Therefore not b, a The mere concept of this argument does not entail onto-illogical equivocation. While we may conceive of beings as having the property of being unkowing, contemplations and actions are not properties at all . More specifically, existence is not a perfection, thus it does not entail onto-illogical equivocation. So the second premise is viable. This concerns whether our concept of the human mind corresponds to anything real, and pure reason can tell us that is valid. We can show that the classic onto-omnia argument fails by keeping the erroneous second premise and replacing the first one with: "Utopia is the most perfect ('the greatest') society conceivable." This parallel conclusion is clearly true. Only observation could determine that such things are natural. Even if con were quidnunc there is no way he could argue against this. Furthermore Problematic Obsequiousness would present an argument against this I would remind my opponent. Infinite encompassing plains are clearly probable, which entitles infinite possibilities too this argument. According to deontological theorists hedonistic terms such as intensity, duration, fecundity, and likelihood, imply that pleasure can be measured quantitatively. 1. (x) (Bx -> Cx) 2. Bu 3. Cu Where B = possible alternate places, c = cause, u = universe Universally quantified statements do not commit one to the existence of classes of alternate plains, whereas existential statements (Such as M-P1) do. Hence P1 and M-P1 are not logically equivalent. This Prima Facie concludes the fact that alternate utilities encompass all plains of existence. I would also like to ask my opponent the following questions. I would also request that he give reasoning to his answers, not just a simple yes or no. Does intrinsic universalizability and the uncategorical imperative theory go hand in hand? Is reality an absolute? Is it possible to disprove a negative? Is it possible to disprove a double negative, assuming all else is in the state of unrehinged equilibrium? Do necessary existences entail maximal loga-logical plains of encompassments? Are necessary components involving the evolved mind facts? Do objective logical facts exist? With that I will close. I look forward to my opponents response. Sources: [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://inside.msj.edu...