[user split] Further Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such.

[Angrboda]

As noted, Khem never addressed what you were saying, period, so there was no debate. (Even if he had, you split on the two, so it doesn't gain you anything.)

And if you had an objection to the original terms of the debate, why did you ask if I was sure that I wanted to proceed on it? You're disproving your own point.

As to whether Khem won half of his arguments, I really couldn't care. Khem makes some stupid arguments. He fails to push home some of the others. That's irrelevant to your larger point which you haven't abetted anyway.

And finally, if you're depending on an inaccurate count of the debates you've had with Khem, then you haven't actually shown that you consistently schooled him.

So, thanks for the interesting graphics, but at this point you're simply whining about terms that you agreed to and claim that you've consistently schooled Khem without indisputable evidence that you have done so. We already knew that you had a high opinion of yourself, the challenge was to prove it was justified. Not proving what you originally claimed but something else entirely doesn't validate your original claim.

At this point you're simply being the weaseling, pettifogging Dunning-Kruger that you've always been. You're stronger than some on tactics, if that offers you consolation, so be it. It does not negate the chicanery, pettifoggery and irrelevance of you in this and other arenas.

(And the fact that you still don't understand the meaning of indisputable evidence is just the cherry on the top.)

(If you want to claim that you succeeded in fulfilling a challenge which doesn't show that you consistently school Khem, I'm willing to concede that you have indeed not shown that you consistently school him.)