I have a suspicion that the account by name of Atwinraven belongs to Kleptin.

My suspicion is great. My suspicion is very strong. I would like to point out that should no one challenge my suspicion then it will be seen as true.

First, I thank my opponent for creating this debate and wish him good luck. Then, I ask the voters to vote on who made the better arguments.

As comments below indicate, there is confusion as to what the actual topic of debate is. Now a look at the challenge page (http://www.debate.com/debate/?member=Yraelz&opponent=1) shows that the bold heading at the top of this debate page is supposed to be the "topic of debate". Thus, in this debate (since Pro did not clarify the topic in the comment section when asked to), Con must assume that "I have a suspicion that the account by name of Atwinraven belongs to Kleptin" is the topic of debate unless Pro's Round 1 argument further clarifies/redefines the topic, such as to the debate being about whether the suspicions are correct. A look at Pro's round one argument (which I will analyze later) shows no changing/redefining of the topic. As none of this clarifying/redefining occurs in Pro's round one argument, the topic of debate must be "I have a suspicion that the account by name of Atwinraven belongs to Kleptin" and therefore Con must negate that Pro unquestionably has this suspicion. I now remind the voters that any changing of the topic later in the debate by Pro is shifting advocacy and is unfair and illegal for Pro to do.

Now to analyze Pro's round one statements:

"My suspicion is great. My suspicion is very strong."

Unfortunately for Pro, this does not meet his burden of proof.

burden of proof- a rule indicating that the affirmative has the responsibility to establish the validity of the claim made by the resolution; the resolution is presumed invalid until the affirmative establishes otherwise

http://www.geocities.com/lddebate/def.html

Dictionary.com defines the proof that Pro is burdened with as "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" (http://dictionary.reference.com/...). Your statements provide no valid evidence that you have a suspicion that the account by name of Atwinraven belongs to Kleptin. Statements about your personal life in a debate that concerns the validity of your personal life cannot be considered valid. Similarly, I could claim that I am a psychic and have traveled through your mind and saw that you did not have these suspicions. Voters would have to take both of these statements at "face value". In order for my opponent to win, he must post conclusive, valid evidence that he indeed has the suspicions that he claims to have. Otherwise, he automatically loses as he does not fulfill his burden.

"I would like to point out that should no one challenge my suspicion then it will be seen as true."

I am sorry, but this is simply incorrect. No matter how much the debaters on this website respect you, no one challenging on you on this topic will not make it true in the eyes of every debater on this website. In addition, this does not fulfill your burden of proof and is in fact irrelevant as to whether your suspicions exist. Furthermore, this is moot as I have challenged you.

My one question that I request you answer is "What is this supposed suspicion based on?"

Alright, I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Its very late right now so sorry if some of my arguments are misspelled. Here we go. =)

For starters my opponents arguments is as infinitely regressive as it gets. He advocates that I have a burden of proof to prove that I have a suspicion. A suspicion is as defined by dictionary.com: the state of mind or feeling of one who suspects. Thus in this case it would be my state of mind or feeling. My opponent however proposes to reject personal statements from me on what exactly my personal state of mind or feeling happens to be. This kind of argument is horrifyingly infinitely regressive as it allows any debater to simply stand up and say, "that guy is not a credible source because we're not sure what his feelings are." The fact of the matter is, I am the number one expert on what feelings I feel. This means that my word needs to necessarily be taken as proof over everyone else's word on this issue.

My opponent however attempts to offer justification for his infinitely regressive argument by stating,

"I could claim that I am a psychic and have traveled through your mind and saw that you did not have these suspicions."

However there are multiple problems with this argument.

1. No proof of psychics. (note: there is proof of emotions)
2. My opponent would then have to show himself to be psychic in someway.
3. My opponent would have to show that he knows who I am outside of debate.com in order to travel through my mind.
4. Have fulfilled the above 3 my opponent could claim that I did not have a suspicion and would be seen as possibly and equal source as me on this matter. But until he can do the above 3 he fails.

Next my opponent argues a burden of proof that doesn't exist. Burdens of proof exist to back up statements one makes in a debate round, I have made the statement that I have a suspicion, and backed it up with the most credible expert on this idea. I have already fulfilled my burden of proof, my opponent however argues that somehow I need to have more of a burden of proof yet he brings absolutely 0 proof for his new argument. Each new challanged argument must be substantiated in some way with a burden of proof yet my opponent has shown absolutely no reason why I need more proof than I already have. My opponent has successfully failed to meet his own burden of proof to substantiate his own arguments.

Finally I have the ability to show where my suspicion stems from:

http://www.debate.com/debates/My-opponent-is-a-better-or-at-the-very-least-equal-debater-with-all-factors-combined./1/

In the comment section of this debate Kleptin quite clearly states, "Atwinraven is one of my other accounts."

Your move.

Yes indeed, here we go. =)

My opponent begins by attacking my statement that his statement that he has the suspicions cannot be considered valid by saying that it is infinitely regressive. For those who do not know what that means, it is "An arguer commits this fallacy when their argument has an explanation which, itself, requires an explanation, which needs another explanation, and so on; the explanation is never adequately supported. Take this for example: "All things must have a cause. The Universe must therefore have a cause. The cause must be God." But if all things must have a cause, then God must have a cause, and its cause must have a cause, and so on forever. Nothing is really explained, the argument is useless."(http://www.lsnk.org/fallacies.htm#40) I am sorry, but I do not see how my argument is infinitely regressive (and therefore say that it is not). Now, I accidentally did not put my reason for your statement about your suspicions not being valid, but I will do so later in the argument. So voters, until my opponent can adequately explain WHY my argument is infinitely regressive, you must disregard his statement about my argument committing the above mentioned fallacy.

My reason for his statement being invalid is that using only his statement alone does not prevent him from lying. Not only is my opponent "the number one expert on what feelings I feel", but the only one who feels what he feels. Before any accusations can be made, I will show why there is good reason to believe that Yrealz possibly lied. Now a look at Yrealz's profile page and one of his debates gives enough reason to believe that he is indeed lying. In the "About Me" section of his profile page(http://www.debate.com/Yraelz), Yrealz clearly states "The fact that I consider debate to be a game permits me a moral leeway that allows me to advocate any position." My opponent is saying that he does not have to follow morals because of one of his opinions. Thus, he is certainly at a higher risk of lying than those who follow morals that are against lying. In this debate (http://www.debate.com/debates/My-opponent-is-a-better-or-at-the-very-least-equal-debater-with-all-factors-combined./1/) my opponent says "However there remains a difference between Logical and I, where as he as stopped such strategies online I have continued to use them. I will commonly accuse opponents of not upholding burdens of proof where non-exist, advocate sound but faulty ideas to lay voters, and even force my opponent to play by my own rules where none should exist." My opponent eloquently states that he uses slimy tactics online. As humans are creatures of habit, it is likely that my opponent uses slimy tactics in many of his debates including this one. Thus, there is good reason to suspect that Yrealz is lying. Now, I have an alternative that can prove whether or not Yrealz lied. Although I do not want to appear like I am argument stealing, Logical-Master's suggestion in this debate (http://www.debate.com/debates/Pizza-Rocks-My-World/1/) fits well here too. Yrealz can drive to my location, where multiple psychologists can examine and test him to see if he indeed has the aforementioned suspicion. The results can then be posted online and the voters can confirm that he was in the study. Otherwise, there are no current tests to determine whether Yrealz has these suspicions and the Unfalsifiability Fallacy would be committed. Also, his burden of proof would not be filled as he as no reliable proof otherwise.

My opponent then goes on to attack my theoretical rebuttal to his statement that he has the suspicion. If you read my round 1 argument, it states "Similarly, I could claim that I am a psychic and have traveled through your mind and saw that you did not have these suspicions. Voters would have to take both of these statements at "face value"" Notice that I state that my theoretical rebuttal is invalid and can only be taken at face value. The whole point of the rebuttal is that Yrealz's opening statement is as invalid as the theoretical rebuttal. Thus, all attacks on the rebuttal are a red herring and should be ignored.

My opponent then goes attacking my burden of proof statements. I have addressed why Yrealz has not fulfilled his burden and thus substantiated my own arguments. Since these things do not need to be readdressed, I will move on.

Finally, some offense.

My opponent states that the definition of suspicion is "the state of mind or feeling of one who suspects". However, for further clarification, we need the definition of the suspecting that one is doing in the state of mind that my opponent says he is in.

suspecting: To think (a person) guilty without proof
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suspecting

I also offer the definition of proof:

proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

Now as you can see, he as given evidence on which his "suspicion" is based on. Thus, according to the above definition, it is proof. As suspecting cannot have proof, my opponent cannot be suspecting. If my opponent is not suspecting, he cannot be in "the state of mind or feeling of one who suspects". Thus, he cannot have a suspicion. To put it simply, because my opponent based his "suspicion" on something, it is not a suspicion. So, even if my opponent goes through the aforementioned psychological tests, he will still lose the debate on this point.

Back to you.

Round 3! Fight!

My opponent begins his round 2 by stating that his argument is not infinitely regressive at all. Sadly my opponent has attempted to disprove my definition by only using one type of infinitely regressiveness. Thus my opponent has used a fallacy in an attempt to disprove my fallacy. This would be like akin to saying, "a poodle is not a dog because it does not look like my terrier which is a dog." This is faulty, there are many different kinds of dogs as there are a few different types of way in which one can be infinitely regressive. The logic in this case is very simple. My opponent denies me the ability to use personal feeling as evidence. Which means someone else would have to decide what my personal feelings were. However the only way to do this would be to ask me, which must be denied. Which means every news source out there that has any sort of personal feeling or opinion is thereby void. My opponent is essentially asking for some type of objective source that simply does not exist (to our knowledge). Under my opponent's objective system nothing would ever qualify as any sort of evidence. Thus my opponent's system is infinitely regressive.

Next my opponent goes on to attempt to prove that my opinion cannot be considered because I may have lied. He cites my profile which states I have a moral leeway that allows me to advocate anything. This is a great example of the slippery slope argument. My opponent assumes since one event has occurred, my moral leeway, then it will inevitably have to be followed by another, me lying in debates. This is simply untrue, my moral leeway gives me the ability to argue positions that I do not actually believe in, but it doesn't mean I have to lie in any way while advocating those positions. Take abortion as a great example, I feel that abortion is morally fine, however if needed to I could argue that pro-life position. This doesn't mean I would have to lie it simply means I would have to advocate the facts of the other side in an appealing manner.

Next my opponent keeps on this train of thought and shows examples from past debates. Great.

1. Notice none of these examples actually say that I have every lied in a debate.
2. Cross apply my profile which says, "I have a moral leeway that allows me to advocate any position" this means that in those debates I may not have been advocating the position that I actually supported.

Thus my opponent graciously offers me the opportunity to have multiple psychologists examine me to see if I actually do have this suspicion or not. I would love to, in fact I am dieing for this opportunity. Sadly however this is my opponents point that he is attempting to prove, thus I must request that he wires me the money in order to do this. At which point I will go in for these tests and post the results in the comment section and everyone can vote on it. It should be noted if my opponent does not do this he will be committing the Unfalsifiability Fallacy against himself. I advocate he does not do this, as if he is unable to prove my case false he will surely lose.

My opponent goes on to drop his theoretical rebuttal which stated that he could be a psychic and claim I didn't have this suspicion. He accuses my points of all having been red herrings and then moves on. This is completely faulty. My points lead me to the conclusion that any statement such as this that he could make would require some additional burden of proof on his part. For instance in the psychic case he would first have to prove himself a psychic. As he cannot do this then he cannot make this theoretical rebuttal. There is no scenario in which his theoretical knowledge about me will precede my own without an additional burden of proof. My opponent has not brought this additional burden of proof.

Finally my opponent argues that suspicion cannot have proof. I agree with this statement. However I also have a suspicion that Kleptin may have been joking, if we look at the context, thus I cannot use his statement as proof without more knowledge. If per say I learned that both accounts had the same IP address or that had a real discussion with Kleptin about this then I would be able to call such a statement proof. As I cannot do this it is simply evidence. Evidence is not the same thing as proof. As the evidence in this case is not sufficient to establish the point true.

My opponents definition:

proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

It should also be noted that suspicion and belief are two different things.

With all of this in mind I can only see a vote in affirmation of this resolution as I have proven that my knowledge of myself must come first and that I have shown where my suspicion stems from. This is a logical stemming of my suspicion. My opponent on the other hand has completely dropped my burden of proof argument and has brought exactly 0 evidence against me, all he has effectively done is advocate that my evidence isn't enough.

Thanks. =)