Larztheloser is a troll

I shall prove, in this round, why the grounds for my opponent's suspicion are all flawed and thus unreasonable. My opponent made four main contentions that I will address first.1. I was following the debate. Not every follower of a debate engages in trollish behavior. A quick glance over the many debates on this site will prove this to be true.2. I am quick to protest accusatory theories. On the speed of my accusation, this is a necessary fact if my opponent's first contention holds. On the fact that I am protesting accusatory theories at all, what do you expect? Me to remain silent when my account is being slandered? That wouldn't be fair. As most people know (but if you don't you can check wikipedia's article on trolls: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(Internet) ), accusing somebody of trolling is a form of ad hominem attack. If my opponent had posted "Larz is stupid" or "Larz is ugly" he would have recieved the same treatment.3. Your statements about the ‘twistedness’ of the debate retracted to ‘fair to argue’ after being accusedI stand by my statement that the debate was too twisted to argue, but the argument made by my opponent in the preceeding comment was fair. However, if only my opponent had bothered to read the comment any further, he would see that I argued that the topic of the debate did not relate to the argument he had made in the comment. What I was doing was critiquing the wording of the motion, not the content of the argument, and my opponent did not seem to grasp this fact throughout all of the comments posted.4. the account is an act of someone supporting your opinion in the comment section that the debate was ‘twisted’ and ‘absurd’Just because a troll trolls a debate doesn't mean they think the topic is absurd. According to research conducted by Claire Hardaker, disruption caused by a troll is always "for the purposes of their own amusement" (. http://gizmodo.com...). There is no causal link between me finding the topic absurd and me wanting to disrupt the proper arguing of the topic, as I made clear in my last comment. Furthermore, there is no causal link between me wanting to disrupt the topic and me actually wanting to troll it. Trolls are, by nature, driven by desire for lolz, not for desire to correct people on their wording of the motion. Next I shall deal with some of pro's more minor points. The very fact that an account created that very day took up the debate that was blatantly labeled 'Troll', causes my suspicion that this was a multi-account. In that case, the suspicion is misplaced. Assuming that the troll was not me (a very good assumption), having just come on to the site, it is not unreasonable that they would immediately take and troll the very first open debate challenge - so the speed at which a troll takes up a debate has no bearing on whether they are a multi-account or not. Named 'Troll' is obviously to send a message that the debate deserves nothing more than a troll to argue against it. Actually it sends the message that the user is a troll. As is again apparent from a quick glance around the site, both high and low quality debates are trolled with no apparent pattern, so it seems to me a much more reasonable theory that trolls just troll any available debates, hoping to do as much damage as possible before being removed. It has no bearing on the topic. This message being made by having a literally named 'Troll' take the debate and kill it coincidentally seems to try and make Larz's point. .. My point had already been made before the topic had been taken. The topic was open for several days and none of the many fine debaters on this site took it. There was no need for me to troll the debate to stop somebody else taking it, and even if there was a need, it was never my "point" to stop somebody else taking it. I was only suggesting that the motion was absurd and twisted because you couldn't rationally straight-neg it, in my view. posting enough to argue with me in the comment section that he might as well have just taken the debate. That would be presupposing that the arguments in the comment section related to the topic. In every one of my comments I showed how flawed the motion was in relation to my opponent's argument, and he still did not comprehend (even when I suggested alternatives) that all I wanted to do was get him to change the wording of the motion. I did argue with my opponent in the comments section - it was a good argument - and I would have taken it were it not for the wording of the motion. However, I always made it abundantly clear that it was the motion that was stopping me, not my opponent's arguments (or else I would not have responded to them). .. .you decide its an unworthy topic for you to take the challenge for it would naturally follow it was not deemed worthy of your interest either. Not necessarily. Bad topic does not mean bad argument. My opponent had a good argument, "worthy of my interest", but not a good topic. Most of the time a person like that would just post the one opinion in the comments and then forget about the debate. Not me. I check over my three most recent favorite debates every time I come on DDO to see whether anybody has said anything to me there. If you look at other debates I have commented on, I almost always reply if somebody answers my comment. I consider it bad manners to leave a message directed at me unresponded to. So this is not like I have made some public ‘slander’ in the forumsI don't care if the words "I have good reason to believe Larz trolled me" appear on the back page of the most obscure book of the world's largest library. Do a quick search on Google for "larztheloser troll" and check the top two results. My aim in making this debate is so that people can understand the absurdity in the second link's claims before they click on it. But that does not change the fact that anybody, for all eternity, who now wants to sully my good name need not look far or try very hard. It doesn't really get more public than this. Actually not said “Larz is a troll”Saying that you think it implies that you have good grounds for the belief. That's like saying "I have good grounds to believe that you are dumb" instead of "You are dumb. "To BE a troll Larz would have to make a regular habit of stuff like thisWrong, according to both of the definitions I have linked. my superficial accusations are coming during the angry frustration we know often follows from having your debate freshly Troll killed. Just because a member is angry gives that member no right to take their fustration out on other members. I know how bad it is to get trolled, I've been through it. It's precisely because of that fact that I take this so personally.