On the contrary, it is something I overlooked simply because I am focused on nailing your scummy self. The reason for the oversight is simple: In bringing to bear your playstyle variance not being different between town and scum it forces me to have to consider a scenario where you may be town. In undertaking such a consideration I have no choice but to acknowledge my one-sided argument against you based on playstyle. Because of this, me taking the initiative to admit fault given my perspective of you has no bearing. It neither indicates me being "caught" for trying to misrepresent nor does it indicate any sort of malicious intent on my end aside from obviously putting forth an argument about you being scum (which you easily refuted anyway).

I'd rather put it to a vote between everyone else who they much prefer concerning our arguments just to see you proven wrong concerning my inability to beat you in a street debate.

On to the important matters now.

Simply saying things aren't doesn't make them not. Take for example misrepresentation. You freely admit to ignoring possibilities because you're focused on portraying me in a scum light. You then contend that this isn't misrepresenting because you say it's not. Yet by the very definition you are clearly misrepresenting. The question then becomes is it malicious or not? Given your continued insistence that it doesn't even exist in the first place, clearly the logic leans towards it being malicious, as if it were merely accidental when you admitted that you used faulty arguments you would have admitted to unintentionally misrepresenting the situation as well. But instead while you admit to using faulty arguments you try to excuse your behavior rather than owning up to it. This pattern of behavior deviates from what you're claiming is the basis of your actions in so much that it centers around not presenting cases for possible scum, but rather dismissing anybody taking a closer look in your direction, a decidedly scum motivation.

And a popularity contest is no way to decide a debate.

Nor does saying they are make it so. And you're wrong yet again. I never admitted to ignoring possibilities. I conceded the point of the argument on playstyle due to your response because I understood what you were saying to me to be true. As I later indicated, it was an oversight on my part as I am focused on you being scum. That's hardly similar to me being focused on portraying you in a scummy light. If that were the case, I never would have conceded the point and argued it further with you, but I didn't. Given that I never had the intent of gunning for you with a recognized faulty argument, that lends credibility to me having no malicious intent towards you.

And give me more credit. I owned up to the fact, recognized in hindsight, that I made a faulty argument. However, I am not going to own up to the lie your portraying that I had malicious intent to misrepresent you and lie. In regards to my own pattern of behavior, you're doing nothing more than grasping at straws. In being upfront about not resorting to lies or false facts to gun for you, I am maintaining the integrity. You, on the other hand, are consistently twisting my actions to paint them in a negative light so you can discredit me.

I imagined a popularity contest regarding our arguments would be fitting. Do you have a better suggestion?