"In the case of cow banana, it has no widely accepted meaning.
Hate speech does."
Oh does it now? Please cite an example of this Hate Speech.
You can't ..Can you????
I'm Listening.................................
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The "if you don't respond, and in the exact way I want you to, then I win the debate even if you've disproved my premise and logic" argument.
Well, as you so wisely predicted, I refuse to play along, because I have my own wise prediction, which is you wouldn't accept any answer given.
Your original comment has been disproved. Hate speech has a well accepted meaning in society. Even if you could somehow prove it didn't, where were you hoping to go next with that?
PS: Look up "disjunctive syllogisms".
I'm sorry but no amount of innuendo and hyperbole will make up for your inability to give a straight answer to a simple question.
"Well, as you so wisely predicted, I refuse to play along".
That's not what I predicted. I predicted that you couldn't answer the question and it looks like I was right.
Your pretending to be 'refusing to play along' looks like a rather pathetic and disingenuous excuse for not being able to answer.
You say "Your original comment has been disproved".
When, where and how was it disproved? Somehow I didn't notice.
Was it when you said "Hate speech has a well accepted meaning in society."?
If the fact that you said that, supposedly disproves my original comment then you better have some hard evidence to back up that assertion.
"because I have my own wise prediction, which is you wouldn't accept any answer given."
I'm not so sure how wise that prediction is. In fact by making it, you appear to be casting aspersions about my character. Such egregious behaviour is unacceptable in any mature discussion and is likely to destroy whatever credibility you might have had.
Now, If you don't answer the question we can only conclude that you CAN'T answer it, which will prove exactly what I said in the first place.
BTW. I looked up "disjunctive syllogisms" which is nothing more than a fancy way of describing the act of deceptively implying that the choice of options or answers are limited to those of a given set, when this may or may no be the case.
However I don't see that it has any relevance to this discussion.
Honestly can't bother to read that. You're not paying me enough to help you improve your debate skills.
Learn some basic reasoning - it will serve you well. Your original point is discredited no matter how many false ultimatums you issue. Your premise is false, your logic is sketchy, and your outcome is invalid.
Oh and unless you reply the way I want, which is to say "I concede", then I win. (By your own reasoning, that works!)
Now please, declare yourself the winner, and tell me you're done with this conversation, so I can have one more smile on your behalf.
I'm not here to win or loose anything but simply to express my opinion on certain issues which I have done.
I'll be glad to leave it to the readers to decide for themselves what they think.