I used ai to help me with my info and format for my work, not to the extent that I just copy and pasted it, I used multiple different ai's to find my information but most of the idea's I used in the debate where from me. I give the ai's my ideas and they tell me how to work off from it but thats only sometime.
"How are you going to get a girlfriend if you dont dress sexy? Like, who wants to finish school without finding a girlfriend? Whats the point of school then?"
lol your not lying tho.
I’m honestly done with this conversation. I’ve explained my side, and I’m not going to keep justifying myself. You’re entitled to your interpretation, but I’m not here to debate my personal intentions or get dragged into assumptions about me. I joined to debate, not to defend my actions based on your perspective. If you have any further issues, feel free to take it to a mod, but I’m moving on.
I see what you're saying, and I get that you're interpreting the activities on the site, but again, interpretation isn’t proof. You’re making an assumption based on coincidences and patterns that seem to fit your perspective. But there's still no solid proof that we’re the same person or that my account is a backup for a second account. Just because things look suspicious to you doesn’t make them fact.
The point about ‘recorded action’ is fair, but your interpretation is still based on surface-level actions. What you're not factoring in is that people’s actions often overlap for reasons that have nothing to do with multi-accounting. You mentioned lying on the profile—that’s not the case. I made the account like anyone else would, to get involved and debate. The 'intent' you’re digging into is based on your perspective of my actions, but you still don’t have any proof of malicious intent.
And I’m not here to argue with you about who I am or why I’m on this site. I’m here to debate. You’re right that I can’t know exactly how you’re interpreting things, but I can only speak for my own intentions. I’m not pretending, and I’m not trying to deceive anyone. I’ve given you my side, and I think we’ve covered all the angles. Beyond this, it’s just us going in circles.
Look, I understand your point about ‘perspective’—we’re both interpreting the situation based on what we can see. But let’s be clear: the activity on the site doesn’t prove anything beyond surface-level coincidences. Yes, we signed up on the same day, and yes, we have similar names, but that doesn’t automatically mean we're the same person or that one account is a 'backup.'
The argument you’re making is built on assumptions about intent, and that’s where we’re diverging. You're assuming that multi-accounting is the 'more likely scenario,' but there’s no definitive evidence for that—just circumstantial evidence, which, as you’ve pointed out, we both agree can't be proven. So, you're relying on the idea that this must be the case because it fits the pattern you've observed, but that’s not proof.
As for the profile details—again, they don’t tell you who we are or what our actual intentions are. If you’re relying solely on the data from the site, then you’re ignoring the full context of why we might behave a certain way. Just because we act similarly on here doesn’t mean we’re the same person. People do this kind of thing all the time—people from similar places, with similar interests, end up with some common behaviors. That's normal.
Lastly, I never said multi-accounting was the most likely scenario. I said "you can believe what you want", but I’m telling you, it’s not the case here. I think we've reached the point where agreeing to disagree is the best way forward. I’m not looking to convince you of anything beyond that I’m a real person here to debate.
Look, I get your angle here—you’re leaning on what seems 'more likely,' but likelihood isn’t the same as fact. You’ve created a narrative that fits your perspective, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. Sure, I can’t prove Elio’s existence to you beyond anecdotes, but your assumptions don’t constitute proof either. If this were a court, it’d be 'innocent until proven guilty,' not 'guilty because it looks likely.'
As for the 'they' thing, I genuinely do use gender-neutral language as a habit, even with close friends. Not everyone sticks to rigid linguistic rules. If that seems implausible to you, fair enough, but it’s how I speak.
As for bringing Elio into this, that’s not going to happen because, frankly, he joined for one debate and isn’t invested in the site. He doesn’t want to deal with accusations or drama, which is why I’m addressing this myself.
At the end of the day, believe what you want. I’m here to participate and enjoy debates.
Alright, I get that you’re skeptical, but honestly, you’re reading way too much into this. I referred to my friend as 'they' out of habit because I tend to use gender-neutral language when I talk about people casually—it wasn’t some big slip-up or hidden agenda. Elio made the account, marked 'male,' and debated because he thought it’d be fun, but I can’t control how you interpret things.
The name thing? It’s just how I talk. I wasn’t trying to come off as innocent or naive; I just thought mentioning him would help explain the situation. If I really was trying to deceive you, don’t you think I’d be more careful instead of using matching names, joining on the same day, and debating in similar styles?
I get that multi-accounting is an issue here, but jumping to conclusions without solid proof isn’t fair either. Believe what you want, but I know we’re not the same person, and I’ll leave it at that.
Yeah, I get why it might look a bit sus, but I swear we’re not the same person. My friend whis name is Elio just made their account to do one quick debate and dip, while I’m planning to stick around and be more active. We thought it’d be funny to have matching names, but I see how it could seem sketchy. If you’re still unsure, we can even debate over it someday.
;)
Your 100% initialed to your own opinion, I should allow people to vote how they want my bad.
Just because I didn't use one agreement that you liked doesn't mean I should lose.
idk why but my laptop crash like twice while trying to publish the debate.
This isn't me and Quasimoto's first debate. In our first ever debate they actually participated but I dont know what happened to them.
Yeah nothing like that is happening.
Sorry I was out for the second round im looking forward to your response.
yeah that is true I had to balance like 3 debates and i just lost all of them lol.
And did he stop all together or just only yours?.
Did your opponent quit for good?
I used ai to help me with my info and format for my work, not to the extent that I just copy and pasted it, I used multiple different ai's to find my information but most of the idea's I used in the debate where from me. I give the ai's my ideas and they tell me how to work off from it but thats only sometime.
I used ai to help me with my work but i type all of that out myself most of the ideas came from me.
"How are you going to get a girlfriend if you dont dress sexy? Like, who wants to finish school without finding a girlfriend? Whats the point of school then?"
lol your not lying tho.
I feel asleep not knowing it was my turn first mb.
Fair enough. Hopefully if we do debate in the future, It'll be about an actual topic not this whole back and forth. Take care.
I don't want to put idea's into my opposites head now do I the point of a debate it is to win.
I know right.
I mean it could be interpreted as whatever.
I’m honestly done with this conversation. I’ve explained my side, and I’m not going to keep justifying myself. You’re entitled to your interpretation, but I’m not here to debate my personal intentions or get dragged into assumptions about me. I joined to debate, not to defend my actions based on your perspective. If you have any further issues, feel free to take it to a mod, but I’m moving on.
I had fun with this debate. ;)
I see what you're saying, and I get that you're interpreting the activities on the site, but again, interpretation isn’t proof. You’re making an assumption based on coincidences and patterns that seem to fit your perspective. But there's still no solid proof that we’re the same person or that my account is a backup for a second account. Just because things look suspicious to you doesn’t make them fact.
The point about ‘recorded action’ is fair, but your interpretation is still based on surface-level actions. What you're not factoring in is that people’s actions often overlap for reasons that have nothing to do with multi-accounting. You mentioned lying on the profile—that’s not the case. I made the account like anyone else would, to get involved and debate. The 'intent' you’re digging into is based on your perspective of my actions, but you still don’t have any proof of malicious intent.
And I’m not here to argue with you about who I am or why I’m on this site. I’m here to debate. You’re right that I can’t know exactly how you’re interpreting things, but I can only speak for my own intentions. I’m not pretending, and I’m not trying to deceive anyone. I’ve given you my side, and I think we’ve covered all the angles. Beyond this, it’s just us going in circles.
Look, I understand your point about ‘perspective’—we’re both interpreting the situation based on what we can see. But let’s be clear: the activity on the site doesn’t prove anything beyond surface-level coincidences. Yes, we signed up on the same day, and yes, we have similar names, but that doesn’t automatically mean we're the same person or that one account is a 'backup.'
The argument you’re making is built on assumptions about intent, and that’s where we’re diverging. You're assuming that multi-accounting is the 'more likely scenario,' but there’s no definitive evidence for that—just circumstantial evidence, which, as you’ve pointed out, we both agree can't be proven. So, you're relying on the idea that this must be the case because it fits the pattern you've observed, but that’s not proof.
As for the profile details—again, they don’t tell you who we are or what our actual intentions are. If you’re relying solely on the data from the site, then you’re ignoring the full context of why we might behave a certain way. Just because we act similarly on here doesn’t mean we’re the same person. People do this kind of thing all the time—people from similar places, with similar interests, end up with some common behaviors. That's normal.
Lastly, I never said multi-accounting was the most likely scenario. I said "you can believe what you want", but I’m telling you, it’s not the case here. I think we've reached the point where agreeing to disagree is the best way forward. I’m not looking to convince you of anything beyond that I’m a real person here to debate.
Look, I get your angle here—you’re leaning on what seems 'more likely,' but likelihood isn’t the same as fact. You’ve created a narrative that fits your perspective, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. Sure, I can’t prove Elio’s existence to you beyond anecdotes, but your assumptions don’t constitute proof either. If this were a court, it’d be 'innocent until proven guilty,' not 'guilty because it looks likely.'
As for the 'they' thing, I genuinely do use gender-neutral language as a habit, even with close friends. Not everyone sticks to rigid linguistic rules. If that seems implausible to you, fair enough, but it’s how I speak.
As for bringing Elio into this, that’s not going to happen because, frankly, he joined for one debate and isn’t invested in the site. He doesn’t want to deal with accusations or drama, which is why I’m addressing this myself.
At the end of the day, believe what you want. I’m here to participate and enjoy debates.
Alright, I get that you’re skeptical, but honestly, you’re reading way too much into this. I referred to my friend as 'they' out of habit because I tend to use gender-neutral language when I talk about people casually—it wasn’t some big slip-up or hidden agenda. Elio made the account, marked 'male,' and debated because he thought it’d be fun, but I can’t control how you interpret things.
The name thing? It’s just how I talk. I wasn’t trying to come off as innocent or naive; I just thought mentioning him would help explain the situation. If I really was trying to deceive you, don’t you think I’d be more careful instead of using matching names, joining on the same day, and debating in similar styles?
I get that multi-accounting is an issue here, but jumping to conclusions without solid proof isn’t fair either. Believe what you want, but I know we’re not the same person, and I’ll leave it at that.
Yeah, I get why it might look a bit sus, but I swear we’re not the same person. My friend whis name is Elio just made their account to do one quick debate and dip, while I’m planning to stick around and be more active. We thought it’d be funny to have matching names, but I see how it could seem sketchy. If you’re still unsure, we can even debate over it someday.
;)
lol ik Don't worry its just me and my friend doing a debate.