Seabiscuits account was unjustifiably closed.

Contributed nothingPro completely misses the argument here. I wasn't advocating banning seabiscuit for contributing nothing, rather I was stating that since seabiscuit contributed harm, yet no good to the site the mods were justified in banning him. Pro tries quite eloquently to show how seabiscuit contributed to the site by:" and instead of allowing the indoctrination of certain bourgeois traditions he destroys the scope on which we are rendered ideologically stalemated, and encourages people not to think like the culture in which we are conditioned but rather to think for ourselves."Ok. Unfortunately, Pro has given absolutely no evidence or examples of how seabiscuit caused us to all challenge our values and throw of the indoctrination so despite his impressive vocabulary, this point falls very quickly under scrutiny. Vote BombingPro says that: "Because a judge is asked to vote on the truth value of a position, it assumes that he or she knows everything, because arguments not brought up in the round must also be evaluated in order to deduce the truth of a statement. This ultimately pushes the actual debate to a periphery, as it no longer matters what is said in the round, only what the judge thinks about the resolution."Actually that is completely and utterly false. Voting is about who made the better arguments DURING the round. NOT what the judge personally believes. As proof of this, here is a quote from Andromeda_Z regarding voting (posted in the DDO orientation thread)[1]:"Remember, the basis for decision should NOT include:Opinions held you, but not mentioned by the debaters.Conversation with any persons during or after the debate round.Comments made by other members of the site."So Pro's idea on the purpose of voting is completely off. Pro completely ignores the example of the debat seabiscuit votebombed me in, completely ignores the popular consensus that it was a votebomb, and completely ignored seabiscuits complete inability to justify his RFD. Also extend the Double_R examples.Pro responds to one example of seabiscuits votebombing, however he mentioned in the RFD that Pro dropped an argument. Even if seabiscuit thought it was stupid, it doesn't matter because it was dropped and is thus treated as a concession. So once again, seabiscuits votebombing has been proven. Also, Pro accuses me of votebombing. 1. Ad hom., we are not discussing me. 2. It isn;t a votebomb because if you actually read the debate you'll see that seabiscuit did not even make an argument until the last round (arguments), Danielles case was much better formatted and seabiscuit made many spelling mistakes (like "rebuddle" instead of rebuttal.) (S/G). And Danielle used 9 sources, seabiscuit used one (sources). I gave seabiscuit the conduct because Danielle forfeited. This was not a votebomb. Pro concedes that Seabiscuit was a jerk, so extend the fact that he harmed the site but contributed nothing. New Argument: Seabiscuit was most likely a multi-accounter, which is against the rules. As I don't have the IP addresses of seabiscuit, I cannot say for certain but I will give compelling evidence that seabiscuit had a multi account who is debating me right now. Look at crackrocks account. First of all, he is not even friends with Seabiscuit. How could pro know so much about seabiscuit if she does not know him? Unless of course, she is him. Also, Pro has consitently voted on seabiscuits debates in his favor. Look at my debate with seabiscuit over gays in the womans bathrooms. Also look at the debate seabiscuit had with danielle, and crackrocks is seen voting for seabiscuit on this as well. In conclusion, vote Con.Source:1. http://www.debate.org...