Oryus is a Thief and the Debate.org Voters are Forgers

I agree to the terms of this debate. I notice that the purposes of the first and second rounds have not been stated. I will take it upon myself to assume the intentions of Pro. I will present my opening argument here in the first round and preemptively counter the points of Pro who clearly has the burden of proof. Pro firstly asserts that I am a thief. His evidence is that I "used semantics to steal (his) victory in this debate. " But I had not yet put forth an entry in this debate, so Pro could not have known whether I would use semantics in it. Also, I have clearly agreed to the terms and therefore will not use semantics in this debate (read my agreement above^). Directly after this, he states that "the resolution was clearly true. " Here he uses the past tense form of the word "is. " It is slightly annoying that Pro is switching tenses all willy nilly. In fact, I am beginning to suspect that he himself is using semantics in an attempt to win this debate. I ask voters to keep this in mind. Regardless of this blatant dishonesty, I press on. I assume Pro is referring to the debate titled "An 800 meter race is longer in terms of length than a 400 meter race," which he has an unexplained link for at the bottom of his opening argument: . http://www.debate.org... In that debate, I made a concise argument for my position. Whether I used semantics is really a moot point. The fact that I used semantics does not automatically mean that I stole his victory. I can prove this with three simple points: 1. ) Semantics=/=stealing 2. ) The victory was not in his possession to begin with therefore, I could not have stolen it from him if I tried. 3. ) The victory is in nobody's possession even now because as of the time of this debate challenge, the debate titled "An 800 meter race is longer in terms of length than a 400 meter race" is still in it's voting period. Victory has yet to be won or stolen. "The resolution was clearly true. " The resolution was not clearly true and I showed this with my argument in that debate. I see no need to contest this further. Voters are welcome to read the debate and see that I am, in fact, winning (though I haven't won just yet). It is gracious of me to counter this point as this is an extraneous detail and has little if anything to do with the stated resolution. This extraneous detail breaks the terms Pro himself has laid out. Pro also asserts that the voters on that debate are forgers who "(voted) with the intent to deceive (to make it seem like [he] lost the debate). " They did not deceive. They gave clear and honest reasons for their decisions and I think it is safe to assume that they were all quite honest in their RFD's. They did not vote for me to make it *seem like* you lost the debate. They literally voted for me to make you lose the debate. That is the voters power. There was no deception or forgery involved in the voting process of that debate. Each voter gave a clear RFD and the fact that they gave me votes doesn't just make it *seem like* you're losing. I *am* in fact winning due specifically to the power of their votes and you are, in fact, losing. It doesn't simply seem to be that way. It just *is* that way- no deception necessary. In conclusion: Ultimately, it is up to voters who wins a debate. They voted for me and I am winning. Also, you assert in the resolution that "Debate. org voters are forgers. " Since you did not put a qualifier, I am inclined to believe you are accusing each and every debate. org voter of being a forger. I look forward to hearing your evidence for this as this information will surely shake DDO to it's very core. If you were expecting people to assume you meant "some" voters or "voters on my debate with Oryus" then this would be different- but you still cannot prove this. Their RFD's are out in the open for all to see. "In conclusion, Oryus is a thief and a troll. " In this debate: . http://www.debate.org... I showed that I am not, in fact, a troll. This is an unsubstantiated claim which has nothing to do with the stated resolution. I assert that Pro has, again, broken his own terms by stating an off-topic claim. Conclusion: I have clearly shown why I did not steal a victory which never was in the possession of Pro to begin with. In addition, I showed that Pro has broken his own terms by using semantics and adding extraneous material which isn't relevant to this debate. I contend that Pro will not be able to prove that all (or even some of) Debate. org voters are forgers. He will not be able to prove that the victory was in his possession, that semantics=stealing, or that I'm a thief.