A in depht refutation of the Lwerd's accusations

First, ladies and gentleman, what sense would it make for me to make such posts with just about anyone being able to read the comments I was making in the comment section at that time? As noted in the comment section, Korezaan stated he would watch this debate. Given that he was online the same amount of time as my post, this would suggest that he could have easily been a witness to my post. Of course, even if he wasn't reading the page at that time, for all I know, he has his options set up to where he gets emailed every time a comment appears on this debate. Given all of this information, it would be far too easy for me to get caught, thus little incentive for me to think twice about posting after the time limit.

Second, let us observe the day this debate began. Thursday, May 15, 2008, 2:54:35 PM .

Given that I received the following email 24 hours before my time limit for round 2 . . .

"
Date Sent:
Sunday, May 18, 2008 10:12 PM
From:
"Debate.com"

To:

Subject:
Debate.com - Reminder, It's Your Turn To Debate

Urgent New
Dear ,You only have 24 hours to post your next argument, otherwise you will forfeit this round for the following debate...Resolved: A corrupt girlfriend/boyfriend is better than no boyfriend/girlfriendhttp://www.debate.com/?d=4053You may change your email preferences at anytime from your account preferences page: http://www.debate.com/myaccount/preferences/


We can conlude that the Lwerd had posted 48 hours before 10:12 on May 18, 2008. If there is doubt of this email testimony, you're free to ask the webmaster himself. Given that he owns this site, he can no doubt back up my testimony. Anyway, that would mean that the Lwerd posted on May 16, at 10:12 pm. Given that this is the case, my email informing that I forfeited should state that i forfeited at 10:12 Pm on May 19, 2008, but ladies and gentleman, it states the following:

"ate Sent:Monday, May 19, 2008 10:00 PMFrom:"Debate.com" To:-name hidden for good reason Subject:Debate.com - Debate Round ForfeitedUrgent NewDear -name hidden for good reason-,You have forfeited the previous round for the following debate...Resolved: A corrupt girlfriend/boyfriend is better than no boyfriend/girlfriendhttp://www.debate.com/?d=4053It is now your opponent's turn to debate."

Why on earth does it state 10:00 pm? I'll tell you why. Because the glitch went into effect TWELVE MINUTES BEFORE MY TIME LIMIT. This compltely disproves the Lwerd's assertion. And once more, the webmaster can prove that this testimony is true, so if there is a doubt, the Lwerd or anyone else is free to ask him.

Next, lets look at the matter of the character limit. Now I've already annihilated this argument in the actual debate (even though I didn't have to), but lets take it from a different and more in depth perspective:


I will admit that I overlooked the character limit in making that post, but my intentions in not taking the time to consider the character limit were entirely pure. Ladies and gentleman, would you please remind me what this website is called? DEBATE.COM. And what is the purpose of this website? To DEBATE. Having observed this website for months, I cannot help but notice that one of the many evils that plague this site is none other than 8000 character limit. Why is it an evil? Because it often serves to prevent people from carrying out this website's purpose (which is TO DEBATE). Now don't get me wrong. I understand that there is often a need for a certain amount of brevity in a debate, but those situations differ from this one. We're not attempting to appeal to the folks at home who don't wish to sit in front of their TVs all day and we're not certainly not attempting to appeal to judges at a competition who are on a strict time limit. We're on the internet; we're in a dark cold place where people go to express themselves without fear of being harrassed by many of the societal norms. Looking at this debate, it certainly could not have lived up to its fullest potential without these two having bypassed the character limit rule: http://www.debate.com/debates/A-Zombie-Apocalypse-would-be-More-Effective-in-causing-Living-Mans-extinction-than-a-Robot-Uprising/1/

That said, looking at it from the other side, there perhaps can be some justification against the above plea as the website does need to conserve bandwidth in order to function properly. Fortunately, my argument which I used during the actual round more than makes up for this (as it actually turns out that I would be using less characters than I could potentially when the entire debate is taken into consideration, hence why I didn't use the justification I'm posting on the blog.