HoosierPapi, a member of debate.com, is close-minded and obnoxious

I and, from what I can tell, many others have been harassed by one of the members on debate.com. His name is HoosierPapi (the link to his page is as follows... http://www.debate.com...). I would like to start this debate by asking my opponent to find even a single instance where this man offered decent criticism without being close-mind and obnoxious... I rest my case.

But for the sake of this debate, I offer two instances of him attacking me.

1) "Idiotically, typically homophobic stance by con in this deabate. ANyone who has to preface their remakrs by saying "I am not against ____ but..." or "I do not hate ____, however..." clearly do disapprove and/or hate on whatever subject/group they are discussing.

Simple answer to this "debate": civil unions are not equal to marriage. And there is no reason why gay people shouldn't have the exact same rights that hetero people have. Separate does not mean euqal, as any student of constitutional law can tell you...no matter how many ways conservatives attempt to construe it.

ROFL, pathetic."

I am not homophobic, as a matter of fact, one of my best friends from my trip to DC, is homosexual himself.

2) "littlelacroix is a moron, and adds nothing substantive to Debate.com. His trolling is bringing the average IQ of the site down about 12 points."

Now I rest my case. Thank you.

Good day to my opponent, any onlookers, etc. I have come to a conclusion

about closed-minded people. This may have no relevence on the debate itself

but through actions such as these, you are showing a lack of tolerance and

thereby, closed-mindedness. also, at least to this papi person, you are being

rather obnoxious. This brings about hypocracy in your debate as you have exemplified both criterion set about by your subject, HoosierPapi
I know this person very little but first, I would like to bring to your attention how bad it really could be:
http://youtube.com...
If you can prove to me, since the burden of proof lies within your argument, that HoosierPapi is more annoying, also given at least three comments in your defense, I will concede.
Thank you.

I would just like to thank you for taking up this debate, but I would like to say that you are way off topic. The topic is dealing with HoosierPapi, not with myself. To some yeah, I may be annoying, but that's not part of this debate. Every one is a little hypocritical. For a matter of fact, if you believe and speak out against global warming, but still drive a car, you are hypocritical. And this is also not about him being the most annoying person ever, just the fact that he's annoying. Once you argue whether he's annoying or not, that is when the actual debate will begin.

Thank you

I never once said this debate was about you. I claimed you were hypocritic. You also failed to point out to me how he is annoying.
The burden of proof lies NOT with the skeptic. I am the skeptic therefore burden of proof lies on you. Prove to me Hoosier is as annoying as you say he is. Honestly, the only way you can win is if you get everyone who's ever met hoosier to say he's "close-minded and obnoxious"

What does it matter if I am hypocritic or not? Like I said before, everyone is a little hypocritic. Also, as I mentioned in my first speech, HoosierPapi is going around debate.com leaving tons of these messages, two of them were given above. Now you cannot tell me that leaving this many comments in people's debates is not annoying and I'm sure that many would agree with me. Your final argument is quite abusive. I do not have to prove EVERYONE believes he's annoying, just as you don't have to prove that everyone is NOT annoying. The reason why there is debate in the first place is because nothing is true 100% of the time. You can debate whether the sky is blue or not, but regardless, it is pink or orange around sunset. I do not have to prove this 100% of the time. Furthermore, as my first speech was setting the ground-rules for the debate and I had challenge you to prove that he gave decent criticism once, and you have failed to do so, you haven't achieved you side of the debate.

*Anyone to vote on this debate must see that my opponent 1) hasn't even been debating the topic at hand and 2) is being extraordinarily abusive by saying that I have to prove something right 100% of the time, it's impossible. That is the reason why debate has been created, to attempt to prove things true or false.

The reason I am so abusive and in the case that you did not realise is because you, yourself, are being entirely obnoxious by creating such slander, true or not, against Hoosier. Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing and, although he abuses it to no ends, you do as well good sir. I respect you but I've also found that you are being rather obtuse in starting a debate against his very name. Next time you feel like ranting, start a blog.
I urge you to vote in Negation of this Resolution.