RyuuKyuzo should be allowed in the DDO Debating League

Let's jump right into this.=======Rebutalls======= -----Noob Sniping-----Con essentially opens his arguments by accusing me on noob sniping. He in no way was abrasive or offensive about it, so no offence is taken, however before I go about dismantling this claim I want it to be made clear that being a noob-sniper does not, in any way, mean that I am not a good enough debater to be in this league. It is entirely possible that I am a noob-sniper who happens to be among the best debaters overall. Therefore, even if I couldn't defend myself against this claim, it would not be reason enough to keep me out of the league.a) First off, I am a noob. I have only been on this site for 3 months. Many of you would still consider me a noob, but even if you are one such person who no longer thinks I am a noob, consider that most of my debates took place when you would have considered me a noob. I ask the voters, can a noob be guilty of noob-sniping? At that point, I'm merely debating my peers. Perhaps I'm a better debater than my peers, but being a better debater than my fellow noobs shouldn't be what keeps me out of the DDO league -- that makes no sense whatsoever. b) As I pointed out in R1, I've deliberately challenged literally every person who has come to a confrontation with me on this site. This very debate is evidence of this. You cannot blame me for "noob-sniping" when non-noobs refuse my debate challenges and rarely open debates themselves. c) I never (or at least almost never) go into a debate expecting an easy win. Even debates where my opponent has plagiarized his entire argument, I don't simply walk in, point this out and expect to get votes. I put in the effort to make counter-arguments all the same in case my opponent does, in fact, plan on continuing. This debate is evidence of that [1]. Even if the bulk of my opponents are noobs, I never debate in the spirit of noob-sniping and therefore I cannot be called a noob-sniper.To conclude this point, it is my contention that "noob-sniping" is absolutely acceptable if 1. you are a noob (or close enough), 2. non-noobs typically turn down your challenges and 3. you are looking for ways to no longer be dependant on noobs for a steady-stream of debating partners -- such as applying for the DDO League. -----Non-contentious Resolutions-----Con insinuates that the resolutions of debates I've taken/made are not contentious and that I always take the majority position. First of all, taking the majority position does not mean I am not a good debater. Anyone can click on over to these debates and judge for themselves if I won purely because I had the easier position, or if I did in fact argue my points well enough to deserve said wins. Let's look at the points Con has brought forth; 1. Ancient Astronaut Theory is Bunk- The very first person to comment in that debate adhered to this theory, and only refused to take the debate due to the debates specifics -- to which I offered to debate him under his terms (no response so far. Big surprise, I know). Furthermore, the History Channel made a 42 part series on this theory (4 seasons, 42 episodes) and new episodes are still being made to this day [2]. Millions of dollars have been spent on advertising this theory and people have based their entire careers on it. I contend that it's absolutely fair to want to debate this topic and that it is absolutely contentious due to its popularity.2. Everyone who has the ability to adopt a vegan diet should do so- To suggest that this is not contentious is rather insulting to the vegan community. Yes I was in the majority by taking Con, but I invite the voters to check out this debate for themselves to see if this was an easy win for me or not [3]. Consider that RoyLatham, the man whom I consider to be the best debater on this site, had the following to say about my performance in that debate;"Very well argued by Con, with point-by-point refutations. Basically, Pro supposed that a vegan diet was the only alternative to a diet with a lot of meat, and Con exposed the errors in that supposition." [3]If I have Roy's seal of approval, who is anyone else to say otherwise?Con points out that my opponent in that debate couldn't link his arguments to his resolution. This was a point that I made in that debate and used it to secure my victory. If anything, this fact is reason FOR allowing me to join, not against. 3. Should we implement a eugenics programAgain, look for yourself to see if I won merely because I was the majority position or if my arguments warranted this victory.4. Race & IQFirstly, I am NOT in the majority on this issue. I am of the position that the vast majority of the race-IQ gap (say, 80%) is due to genetics. This sort of position would make me a social pariah if I made this public. Even in that thread, it was a fairly even split of pros and cons.Now consider the resolutions of my other debates to see if I do or do not debate contentious resolutions. Zoos do more harm than good, steroids in sports, Privatize Education, Mitt Romney's name is more swell Barack Obama's etc. [5]That last one is nothing but contentious. There is no objective measure for the "swellness" of a name, so winning or losing such a debate comes entirely down to raw debating skill.-----No Great Partners-----Con says I have had no great opponents yet. Perhaps this is the case, but then being in the league would solve this problem immediately (which is why I want to join). Con points at LeafRod and states that he only had 2 debates. What Con probably isn't aware of is that LeafRod had another account that had been banned. LeafRod goes on to explain this in that thread [4]. How good was he? I don't know, but the point is he was not a noob. Furthermore, I would be more than willing to challenge any of the "great" debaters in the forums as well, it just so happens that the best debaters on DDO tend to be the same people who don't say stupid things in the forums (go figure). This is hardly my fault.I could always start a debate and set the restriction to 10+ wins, but I have a hard enough time getting people to debate me with no restrictions. Consider that in the LeafRod thread, I actually upped the stakes so that if LeafRod could beat me in a debate on that topic, I would close my account and leave DDO forever [4]. He still refused. -----More bullets-----Con mentions a quote from Einstein;"If I were wrong, one would be enough!"I will remind Con that in the very first arguments I made in R1 I said the following;"I would argue that all my debates, at least from my end, are good debates as I do not post any arguments that I do not feel are thorough and concise. If con agrees with me that this is the case, then he should absolutely allow me in to the DDO league."The first thing I did in this debate is acknowledge that my first argument was enough to justify letting me join. So, thank you, Einstein. I contend that all of my arguments are enough on their own. Putting them together just makes efficient use of the character limit. ;)=======Conclusion=======My opponent tried to establish me as a noob-sniper whose record represents a slew of easy-wins. While my opponents may not have been the best DDO has to offer, this has absolutely no bearing on the skill-level showcased in the arguments I made in those debates. The fact of the matter is, I have shown that I am a good enough debater to be in the league. My opponents haven't been great, but my opponent's skill is largely out of my control and should not be the deciding factor in whether or not I am good enough to join.I look forward to your response. 1. http://debate.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://debate.org... 4. http://www.debate.org... 5. http://debate.org...