First of all, you brought exactly zero percent of that up - second of all... what? I touched on THE BIGGEST PART of the militarization of police and the second biggest things, I established an entire section for the ethics of utilizing military strategies on civilian populations - and rebuked my opponent regarding their argument - it is EXTREMELY clear that you did not read the thing carefully if that's your take away
Finally, you are the one who always harps for others to be extensive with their voting, the lack of self-awareness is legitimately frustrating.
Dude - "but neither side's argument was convincing over the other" and that's it, aren't you the one who likes to ensure that every vote point is valid? Seriously, even you should see that my side is definitely more than a little more convincing- and completely ignoring the fact that I set up an entire framework, established that my opponent was untopical, and had multiple attack points versus his one - my argument had a rebuttal, which is inherently going to make mine more convincing.
This wouldn't even both me if you had brought up a single point in it - it just seems to me that you scanned through the debate, figured that my work balanced out against what you believed to be the "true" conclusion, and tied it. Again, if you had brought up even a single point I wouldn't be that bothered by this, but this is extremely low energy for you - even if I disagree with your voting, most of the time you do put the work in - so even I disagree I at least know your doing it right, I don't think you did that this time.
Obviously - the fact that its closer to 1900 means literally nothing, for example, 9/11 happened in 2001, the fact that it happened very closer to 1999 does not mean it happened in the 20th century. It happened in the 21st century, proximity to other centuries nonwithstanding
Good thing the resolution is talking about BY the 19th century and not BEFORE the 19th century. Jesus, your so disingenuously semantic its really annoying
Do you just... have a problem with reading - BEFORE 1900! As in evidence BEFORE the year of 1900, as in 1899 and back! Seriously, how hard is it for you to grasp? I legitimately do not think you ar being serious rn
Yes - why do you think he says he will only use evidence from BEFORE 1900?! You know, the 19th century? Are you actually READING, because it doesn't seem like you are. He doesn't say "the 1900s", he specifically says ONLY USING EVIDENCE FROM BEFORE 1900
RMM-
Um... because its the resolution? Yeah it does - because only by handicapping himself to this extent can he get you to actually try to prove your point
Er.. usually Madman forfeits rounds to give his opponent another chance to present their evidence. In other words - for you to present an argument at all
And I think your wrong - the description of THIS debate:
"This debate is rigged. PRO can't lose this debate, that's a rule. Any vote giving majority points to the CON side will be reported and removed. Be warned. LOL!"
Wow - people think I have a temper but its nothing compared to yours, right?
Furthermore the fact that government treats black people worse? Yeah - that has literally nothing to do with this. Furthermore, I didn't even mention anything about my argument in relation to yours - I merely noted that your argument regarding the function of the hypothalamus was quite superficial - just think some more.
Race and gender aren't comparable - we've been over this - furthermore: I was referring to your argument of functions regarding the hypthalmus. Though that is also extremely superficial - you are not thinking internally at all with this - only on your own assumptions.
I mean, there's that, but I was primarily referring to how superficial his arguments are. If I don't have to do any more research to rebuke someone, then that rebuttal isn't all that strong. I'll do more regardless - but the core rhetoric here is largely semantic, which, doesn't surprise me.
What? I've said this completely calmly, lol - are you that bad at reading moods? No - there is no nitpicking here, I've explained (in detail) why you are wrong here. You can back up your arguments or you can hand wave emm' away - your choice - this isn't me "picking a fight" this is me seeing something untrue and correcting you, I'm sorry - but you have to be one arrogant little prick to assume that me correcting you is me "trying to pick a fight" - see - now I'm frustrated, but that's more or less because you don't like what I have to say.
Anywho - the questions are rhetorical - that should be obvious bud - second of all -what? I said that automatically accepting a description as uncontestable fact was highly abusable, not to mention against the actual principles of accepting to be against the instigator - please explain (in detail) why that is nitpicking and how I am trying to pick a fight with you. Do you believe me interacting with you in a way that is disagreeing is me picking a fight with you? There is a very clear difference in me picking fights and me arguing, please learn it.
My problem is that if that were the case, then kritiks would be effectively useless - I don't think that the mere fact that something is stated in the resolution that it should be opheimed, it makes much more sense to just have both debaters come to agreed definitions and such before the debate - but the fact that your opponent can see the description does not mean they accept the description - if you notice- a description is optional in a debate, whereas a resolution is not - as a debater, whenever you accept a debate, you are not accepting the resolution or the description - you are accepting that you are arguing for or against the resolution, that is literally it.
Given your logic, if there was something in the description, say - an argument for the resolution, - then that must defacto be accepted and is unarguably... which - is not only highly abusable, but quite stupid. I'm sorry, but no - your plain ole' wrong here - I have done the research too - nothing in the CoC says that accepting a debate means you accept what is said in the description - in fact - just like the resolution - it makes more sense that you are AGAINST the description, just as you are against the instigator's position. That is the point of debates
Completely understandable, and while I do disagree that one forfeit should result in autoloss - I would say that if your opponent forfeited a *majority* of the rounds, then that should be an auto loss - for example - if someone forfeited 1 out of 2 rounds, 2 out of 3 rounds, 3 out of 4 rounds, 3 out of 5 rounds, 4 out of 6 rounds, and so on and so forth - which would stop the problem AND give people who are honestly just unavailable the time they need.
Please quote the part of the CoC that specifically says or implies that the description is automatically accepted, because I've actually investigated this before, and found no such principle.
I actually know nothing about this topic - so I can go in and vote with little bias in regard to the topic, I'll try to read through it and get a vote out by tommorow
Well - the resolution was to convince you - it was about the concept of proving something to you, therefore - that's how you lost in my book - also that you incorrectly identified your BoP
Yeah - that's definitely true - colloquialism on my part - but I was focusing on comprehension rather than technical correctness ya know? I feel like these are objections borne of not understanding gravity and what creates weight, which is a failing of our education system.
You seem to not understand weight, fundamentally speaking, the reason you have weight is not because of gravity directly - there is gravity in space - it is because of normal force - you see as you stand on something you are exerting mass on the ground, and the ground provides force in return (the third law of forces). So to argue that "gravity isn't smashing mosquitoes" is to misunderstand what gravity actually does. It accumulates mass - it doesn't work like a black hole - black holes are a vacuum because of very very intense gravity - this doesn't always happen - usually its more of a spiraling effect (orbits/rotation). Anywho - a lot of flying things -specifically insects - use the wind as a crutch or generate lift by displacing enough air (the air does the work - not the wings themselves)
False - gender identity has been an observable phenomenon since the greeks originally identified sexual dimorphism in humans. Furthermore, I empirically prove that the minute brain differences in brain structure between males and females exist in transgender individuals - despite the fact that these differences are so minuscule.
The two don't correlate - there is such thing as a gender identity - there is no such thing as a "limb identity" there is a difference - to deny gender-affirming care has been empirically proven to do intense psychological harm to these people
The rates have generally increased, why? Because of the changing legal definition of sexual harassment, it happens to be the case that more harassment is actually reported, thereby increasing the amount of total sexual harassment, its the same thing as the rape statistic in Sweden.
You do realize that no - giving them *more* hormone of the sex you've assigned will not help them, empirically refusing gender-affirming treatment, makes it *worse* you are so confused and biased that you don't even realize that doctors are fixing the problem in their bodies to match their mind - as all treatment is, not the other way around.
Mm - its more the fact that sympathy doesn't make a valid point here. I think you should sympathize with everyone to *some* degree, its more the fact that I don't think your argument was valid regarding the aforementioned rhetoric.
Um... no - I think the fact that men typically run STEM institutions perpetuates the problems of women being sexually harassed... curiously the more women serve towards the top of a company the less sexual harassment that women suffer overall in that company. Its almost like there's an obvious correlation between men and sexually harassing women.
Oh! Look at this! You've got it! Way to go bud! That's right, the body fails at regulating a certain thing, and as a consequence, the individual suffers. You wanna know why that's not a false equivalence in regard to trans-gender people? Because their bodies also fail at regulating their hormones - these people do not "think they are *insert their gender*" they *know* so - in the same way you or I could say that we were our own gender - see - psychiatrist gives them gender-affirming care to fix the body's mistake - just like depression pills!
Its like you are so incredibly biased against a certain outcome you didn't realize the super obvious analogy right in front of your face.
"I don't think this was really a strawman on your part, Alec. They argue that any difference in earnings is due to sexism and any difference in activity (spending more time with kids) is all part of some conspiracy that forces women to act a certain way. Essentially: women and men would do the exact same thing (go into STEM at same rates or whatever) and achieve the exact same outcomes(would work same amount of hours, take same time off, earn same amount, etc.) if it weren't for "muh evil patriarchy"."
Um... in a sort? Obviously you state in a way to be ridiculed, and no feminists believes that all women would act the same as men, but... you know - if there wasn't a patriarchy, perhaps women wouldn't be sexually harrassed at a significantly greater rate than men? This really has nothing to do with the point - the point here is that nobody believes men and women to be the exact same, we expect them to be treated the same legally and socially - and I already responded with that, but here you are strawmanning your "libtard"
"Then they act like there is some huge distinction to be made if some mentally ill person thinks they are a woman or a man when they aren't. Next, they say that calling them those now meaningless terms ('man' or 'woman' because what tf is a man or woman these days?) against their preference is "hate speech".... because it is a meaningful term with consequences now...."
A mentally ill person, eh? So, when someone's depressed the doctor's give them medicine to make them less depressed, right? How come the doctors give people with gender dysphoria hormones, making their bodies more like their "mental illness" - because its not a mental illness- gender identity is more you than your gametic phenotypic expression ever could be. You are making a false equivalence buddy.
Doesn't really correlate - also you do realize that extending empathy and allowing someone to express and (most likely oppress people based on that belief) are not the same thing? You can outlaw the perspective while extending empathy, I don't even necessarily agree with the resolution, but I think that Puachu won this debate easily - you often made non-sequiturs and this is a perfect example of that. Having more logic doesn't necessarily mean that that logic is more sound.
Well, he's probably going to argue that nobody owes anybody any obligations - maybe he'll talk about the part before that - but he's gonna focus on the moral obligation bit.
I think - and don't quote me here - that his position as an individualist means that moral obligations aren't a thing.
I wasn't specifically trying to counter you - though I do see why you would think that - I was in general making an argument that was harder to crack in general. I pretty much expected you to attack the "and ought to be treated as such", you are still an individualist right? So I'd figure you would go against that.
I'll give it a go, but I am a tad biased against RMM (understating it I'm sure), so I'll have to take longer that way I can make sure my vote isn't just biased.
Are... you actually thinking through the positions here? DId you even look at my response? Have you? Because until you do I won't dignify you with a response.
RMM - do you think I treat you like an asshole? Then I need you to take a step back and seriously question why I treat you like that - someone who I should agree with on a majority of subjects - and not Fauxlaw? Have you ever considered that perhaps *you* are at fault here? Have you ever considered that *you* are the one that are so intellectually dishonest I find myself angry at you for continuing on as if you've done nothing wrong? Have you ever considered that *you* are the fucking dick? I never assume I'm an angel, I do what I do to come to the most amount of good, that means fighting against transphobia, which means expecting nothing more than intellectual honesty from my interlocutors, I don't care if I'm not nice in the moment, that's not the point of what I do. So throw your tantrums all you like - I feel completely justified - the moment you take responsibility for the claims you make I'll start feeling bad, until then you stay on the shit list bud.
What? No - these were not "troll vote" you simply don't like it when I vote against you, but every chance I give you to explain why my vote was wrong you fail to explain. You calling me a "poser" isn't actually evidenced by anything, this is you having a vendetta against me because I don't accept your shit whenever you try to throw it at me.
Explain how my votes were troll, because I gave a *lot* of fucking reason why you lost that vote. You see - I even talked about how you almost won, but the only evidence you cited was *MOVIE SCENES*, how do you expect that to convince anyone? You should stop blaming me for your failings and just improve your evidence you show, you see - you've failed to actually account for the debate, which is extremely clear.
I'm not proposing that we do, I am arguing for what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the facts presented. Do you think we should give up on the truth merely because it seems inconsequential?
RMM
Don't pull that shit bud - I gave you that opportunity and you failed to even try to accept it - don't think lying will go unnoticced.
Because I figured you would see reason without, but as you can tell - I did appeal to mods.
First of all, you brought exactly zero percent of that up - second of all... what? I touched on THE BIGGEST PART of the militarization of police and the second biggest things, I established an entire section for the ethics of utilizing military strategies on civilian populations - and rebuked my opponent regarding their argument - it is EXTREMELY clear that you did not read the thing carefully if that's your take away
Finally, you are the one who always harps for others to be extensive with their voting, the lack of self-awareness is legitimately frustrating.
Dude - "but neither side's argument was convincing over the other" and that's it, aren't you the one who likes to ensure that every vote point is valid? Seriously, even you should see that my side is definitely more than a little more convincing- and completely ignoring the fact that I set up an entire framework, established that my opponent was untopical, and had multiple attack points versus his one - my argument had a rebuttal, which is inherently going to make mine more convincing.
This wouldn't even both me if you had brought up a single point in it - it just seems to me that you scanned through the debate, figured that my work balanced out against what you believed to be the "true" conclusion, and tied it. Again, if you had brought up even a single point I wouldn't be that bothered by this, but this is extremely low energy for you - even if I disagree with your voting, most of the time you do put the work in - so even I disagree I at least know your doing it right, I don't think you did that this time.
RMM
Obviously - the fact that its closer to 1900 means literally nothing, for example, 9/11 happened in 2001, the fact that it happened very closer to 1999 does not mean it happened in the 20th century. It happened in the 21st century, proximity to other centuries nonwithstanding
RMM
They certainly aren't - in this context "by" means up until and including, etc, etc - which is fairly intuitive.
RMm
Good thing the resolution is talking about BY the 19th century and not BEFORE the 19th century. Jesus, your so disingenuously semantic its really annoying
Rmm
Do you just... have a problem with reading - BEFORE 1900! As in evidence BEFORE the year of 1900, as in 1899 and back! Seriously, how hard is it for you to grasp? I legitimately do not think you ar being serious rn
Rmm
Yes - why do you think he says he will only use evidence from BEFORE 1900?! You know, the 19th century? Are you actually READING, because it doesn't seem like you are. He doesn't say "the 1900s", he specifically says ONLY USING EVIDENCE FROM BEFORE 1900
RMM-
Um... because its the resolution? Yeah it does - because only by handicapping himself to this extent can he get you to actually try to prove your point
RMM
". I will prove the Earth is NOT flat using only proofs from before 1900,"
Nah - its not like he stipulated that in his description or anything, that DEFINITELY didn't happen
No... you made a claim, therefore you have the necessary burden of proof - while your opponent also has a BoP, you also have one.
Its a blatant contradiction then. If you don't agree with what you put in your description, then.... don't do it.
Er.. usually Madman forfeits rounds to give his opponent another chance to present their evidence. In other words - for you to present an argument at all
And I think your wrong - the description of THIS debate:
"This debate is rigged. PRO can't lose this debate, that's a rule. Any vote giving majority points to the CON side will be reported and removed. Be warned. LOL!"
Well there goes your plan to remove votes
Yee, and I was confusing it with the standard rhetoric of a syllogism
Very true
Wow - people think I have a temper but its nothing compared to yours, right?
Furthermore the fact that government treats black people worse? Yeah - that has literally nothing to do with this. Furthermore, I didn't even mention anything about my argument in relation to yours - I merely noted that your argument regarding the function of the hypothalamus was quite superficial - just think some more.
Race and gender aren't comparable - we've been over this - furthermore: I was referring to your argument of functions regarding the hypthalmus. Though that is also extremely superficial - you are not thinking internally at all with this - only on your own assumptions.
Not how descriptions work bud
I mean, there's that, but I was primarily referring to how superficial his arguments are. If I don't have to do any more research to rebuke someone, then that rebuttal isn't all that strong. I'll do more regardless - but the core rhetoric here is largely semantic, which, doesn't surprise me.
hm, interesting for sure... but weaker than I expected.
What? I've said this completely calmly, lol - are you that bad at reading moods? No - there is no nitpicking here, I've explained (in detail) why you are wrong here. You can back up your arguments or you can hand wave emm' away - your choice - this isn't me "picking a fight" this is me seeing something untrue and correcting you, I'm sorry - but you have to be one arrogant little prick to assume that me correcting you is me "trying to pick a fight" - see - now I'm frustrated, but that's more or less because you don't like what I have to say.
Anywho - the questions are rhetorical - that should be obvious bud - second of all -what? I said that automatically accepting a description as uncontestable fact was highly abusable, not to mention against the actual principles of accepting to be against the instigator - please explain (in detail) why that is nitpicking and how I am trying to pick a fight with you. Do you believe me interacting with you in a way that is disagreeing is me picking a fight with you? There is a very clear difference in me picking fights and me arguing, please learn it.
My problem is that if that were the case, then kritiks would be effectively useless - I don't think that the mere fact that something is stated in the resolution that it should be opheimed, it makes much more sense to just have both debaters come to agreed definitions and such before the debate - but the fact that your opponent can see the description does not mean they accept the description - if you notice- a description is optional in a debate, whereas a resolution is not - as a debater, whenever you accept a debate, you are not accepting the resolution or the description - you are accepting that you are arguing for or against the resolution, that is literally it.
Given your logic, if there was something in the description, say - an argument for the resolution, - then that must defacto be accepted and is unarguably... which - is not only highly abusable, but quite stupid. I'm sorry, but no - your plain ole' wrong here - I have done the research too - nothing in the CoC says that accepting a debate means you accept what is said in the description - in fact - just like the resolution - it makes more sense that you are AGAINST the description, just as you are against the instigator's position. That is the point of debates
Completely understandable, and while I do disagree that one forfeit should result in autoloss - I would say that if your opponent forfeited a *majority* of the rounds, then that should be an auto loss - for example - if someone forfeited 1 out of 2 rounds, 2 out of 3 rounds, 3 out of 4 rounds, 3 out of 5 rounds, 4 out of 6 rounds, and so on and so forth - which would stop the problem AND give people who are honestly just unavailable the time they need.
Please quote the part of the CoC that specifically says or implies that the description is automatically accepted, because I've actually investigated this before, and found no such principle.
I actually know nothing about this topic - so I can go in and vote with little bias in regard to the topic, I'll try to read through it and get a vote out by tommorow
Well - the resolution was to convince you - it was about the concept of proving something to you, therefore - that's how you lost in my book - also that you incorrectly identified your BoP
Try 1882 bud. Chinese Exclusion Act
Yeah - that's definitely true - colloquialism on my part - but I was focusing on comprehension rather than technical correctness ya know? I feel like these are objections borne of not understanding gravity and what creates weight, which is a failing of our education system.
You seem to not understand weight, fundamentally speaking, the reason you have weight is not because of gravity directly - there is gravity in space - it is because of normal force - you see as you stand on something you are exerting mass on the ground, and the ground provides force in return (the third law of forces). So to argue that "gravity isn't smashing mosquitoes" is to misunderstand what gravity actually does. It accumulates mass - it doesn't work like a black hole - black holes are a vacuum because of very very intense gravity - this doesn't always happen - usually its more of a spiraling effect (orbits/rotation). Anywho - a lot of flying things -specifically insects - use the wind as a crutch or generate lift by displacing enough air (the air does the work - not the wings themselves)
i think it suffers from the same thing all appeals to universalism do
From what I've seen of your arguments, I'll be surprised if you can fulfill your own BoP, much less debunk mine.
False - gender identity has been an observable phenomenon since the greeks originally identified sexual dimorphism in humans. Furthermore, I empirically prove that the minute brain differences in brain structure between males and females exist in transgender individuals - despite the fact that these differences are so minuscule.
The two don't correlate - there is such thing as a gender identity - there is no such thing as a "limb identity" there is a difference - to deny gender-affirming care has been empirically proven to do intense psychological harm to these people
The rates have generally increased, why? Because of the changing legal definition of sexual harassment, it happens to be the case that more harassment is actually reported, thereby increasing the amount of total sexual harassment, its the same thing as the rape statistic in Sweden.
You do realize that no - giving them *more* hormone of the sex you've assigned will not help them, empirically refusing gender-affirming treatment, makes it *worse* you are so confused and biased that you don't even realize that doctors are fixing the problem in their bodies to match their mind - as all treatment is, not the other way around.
Mm - its more the fact that sympathy doesn't make a valid point here. I think you should sympathize with everyone to *some* degree, its more the fact that I don't think your argument was valid regarding the aforementioned rhetoric.
Um... no - I think the fact that men typically run STEM institutions perpetuates the problems of women being sexually harassed... curiously the more women serve towards the top of a company the less sexual harassment that women suffer overall in that company. Its almost like there's an obvious correlation between men and sexually harassing women.
Oh! Look at this! You've got it! Way to go bud! That's right, the body fails at regulating a certain thing, and as a consequence, the individual suffers. You wanna know why that's not a false equivalence in regard to trans-gender people? Because their bodies also fail at regulating their hormones - these people do not "think they are *insert their gender*" they *know* so - in the same way you or I could say that we were our own gender - see - psychiatrist gives them gender-affirming care to fix the body's mistake - just like depression pills!
Its like you are so incredibly biased against a certain outcome you didn't realize the super obvious analogy right in front of your face.
"I don't think this was really a strawman on your part, Alec. They argue that any difference in earnings is due to sexism and any difference in activity (spending more time with kids) is all part of some conspiracy that forces women to act a certain way. Essentially: women and men would do the exact same thing (go into STEM at same rates or whatever) and achieve the exact same outcomes(would work same amount of hours, take same time off, earn same amount, etc.) if it weren't for "muh evil patriarchy"."
Um... in a sort? Obviously you state in a way to be ridiculed, and no feminists believes that all women would act the same as men, but... you know - if there wasn't a patriarchy, perhaps women wouldn't be sexually harrassed at a significantly greater rate than men? This really has nothing to do with the point - the point here is that nobody believes men and women to be the exact same, we expect them to be treated the same legally and socially - and I already responded with that, but here you are strawmanning your "libtard"
"Then they act like there is some huge distinction to be made if some mentally ill person thinks they are a woman or a man when they aren't. Next, they say that calling them those now meaningless terms ('man' or 'woman' because what tf is a man or woman these days?) against their preference is "hate speech".... because it is a meaningful term with consequences now...."
A mentally ill person, eh? So, when someone's depressed the doctor's give them medicine to make them less depressed, right? How come the doctors give people with gender dysphoria hormones, making their bodies more like their "mental illness" - because its not a mental illness- gender identity is more you than your gametic phenotypic expression ever could be. You are making a false equivalence buddy.
I think your grasping at straws - it doesn't take into account my response at all
Doesn't really correlate - also you do realize that extending empathy and allowing someone to express and (most likely oppress people based on that belief) are not the same thing? You can outlaw the perspective while extending empathy, I don't even necessarily agree with the resolution, but I think that Puachu won this debate easily - you often made non-sequiturs and this is a perfect example of that. Having more logic doesn't necessarily mean that that logic is more sound.
Well, he's probably going to argue that nobody owes anybody any obligations - maybe he'll talk about the part before that - but he's gonna focus on the moral obligation bit.
I think - and don't quote me here - that his position as an individualist means that moral obligations aren't a thing.
I wasn't specifically trying to counter you - though I do see why you would think that - I was in general making an argument that was harder to crack in general. I pretty much expected you to attack the "and ought to be treated as such", you are still an individualist right? So I'd figure you would go against that.
I'll give it a go, but I am a tad biased against RMM (understating it I'm sure), so I'll have to take longer that way I can make sure my vote isn't just biased.
I'm glad you took the time to check through it, but I largely disagree with your anyalsis.
Are... you actually thinking through the positions here? DId you even look at my response? Have you? Because until you do I won't dignify you with a response.
RMM - do you think I treat you like an asshole? Then I need you to take a step back and seriously question why I treat you like that - someone who I should agree with on a majority of subjects - and not Fauxlaw? Have you ever considered that perhaps *you* are at fault here? Have you ever considered that *you* are the one that are so intellectually dishonest I find myself angry at you for continuing on as if you've done nothing wrong? Have you ever considered that *you* are the fucking dick? I never assume I'm an angel, I do what I do to come to the most amount of good, that means fighting against transphobia, which means expecting nothing more than intellectual honesty from my interlocutors, I don't care if I'm not nice in the moment, that's not the point of what I do. So throw your tantrums all you like - I feel completely justified - the moment you take responsibility for the claims you make I'll start feeling bad, until then you stay on the shit list bud.
What? No - these were not "troll vote" you simply don't like it when I vote against you, but every chance I give you to explain why my vote was wrong you fail to explain. You calling me a "poser" isn't actually evidenced by anything, this is you having a vendetta against me because I don't accept your shit whenever you try to throw it at me.
Explain how my votes were troll, because I gave a *lot* of fucking reason why you lost that vote. You see - I even talked about how you almost won, but the only evidence you cited was *MOVIE SCENES*, how do you expect that to convince anyone? You should stop blaming me for your failings and just improve your evidence you show, you see - you've failed to actually account for the debate, which is extremely clear.
I'm not proposing that we do, I am arguing for what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the facts presented. Do you think we should give up on the truth merely because it seems inconsequential?