To admiral hale:

[Zynth]

*Cough*
*Attempt to copy "problem?"'s manner of speech*

The defense will now put forth our case.

Firstly, a point of clarification:
The prosecution is making wild claims with no proper evidence backing these claims. As such, we believe the defendant shall be acquitted on counts of being "a noob", being "the worst", looking "like a mad scientist" and being "as scary as spongebob lighting up a joint". However, evidence was given on the 5th count on being "unable to beat me (the prosecution)" and is considered admissible.

As such, I shall begin with one point of contention on the 5th count.

You fair sir. Have no right to claim that Hale is indeed a loser.

On my first point of contention:
You claim to have beaten him on 5 counts in a Bomber class vessel. However, the defense would like to see what evidence you have of such a case.

Assuming your statement is true, but one cannot determine that one is a "loser" simply on the basis of PvP.
There are multiple factors that determine a loser, poor PvP skills is just one of them. Additionally, we cannot really state that Hale is a "loser" because we simply have no benchmark for PvP skills. We cannot rule out the possibility of both the defendant and the prosecution having sub-par PvP skills.
The defense demands that the prosecution first put up more substantial evidence before putting forth your case.
As such your point does not stand.

---