debate

Haha, that changes my view. It isn't that you didn't acknowledge it, its you didn't understand lol. Oh well.

Both of you, please chill. As infuriating as this argument may be for both of you. Getting at each others throats isn't the way you should be doing this.

im not getting at his throat, iv been pretty cordial throughout all his adhoms i do have a learning disability that can hinder my reading comprehension so i seriously am not sure if i just cant understand what hes saying

Please point at my adhoms, I am simply debating.

"You are so disconnected from reality." "Instead of using your ridiculous pre-written garbage." and calling me hun was belittling, but i suppose that can be considered a nit pick see? i actually gathered the evidence

Firstly I want to apologize. Hun, love, and sweetheart are just in my vocabulary as I come from the deep south. Sometimes it comes without my intention to, I did not mean it at all to be belittling, for that I do apologize. Saying you are disconnected from reality when you claim every farmer in the world has a tractor isn't an ad hominem, it is creating a point to explain why you have a mindset that isn't realistic. Pre written garbage directly attacked your arguments, so that doesn't fall under ad hominem either. And to explain what I was talking about the accountability thing: I wrote This first "Oh, and the answer is accountability. We put humans to death to hold them accountable for their actions, which is something you yourself would do if a cow attacked a person." You then asked if it was okay to kill humans who don't have accountability. I already answered that in my first statement, but you didn't read it or you didn't understand it, one or the other. No moderator is necessary. They are right. We are both getting heated, so I will step aside.

Thanks for explaining that, I was having trouble keeping track of everything that has been said. As there is a lot of it.

Thank you for the apology, I appreciate it and understand that because we've never really conversed that there can be a misunderstanding. I still attest that those were absolutely adhom attacks. You've never debate me before or seen me debate so you could never know what was prewritten, and my debate with acadia had none of what my debate with you entailed. I found your rederick to be extremely repetitive as well but i did not call it "prewritten garbage" because I assumed that was just the crux of your debate. During a debate it is important to be charitable because of cases like these where it can easily divulge into adhoms if one isn't charitable. I'd also like to point out that you were saying i was deflected arguments before the point that I asked you this question, and i asked you this specifically so we could instead talk about something more simplified so things wouldn't become tangled. Ok I see now what you meant, i just wish you would have stated that previously when i first didn't understand. So you are agreeing, just to clarify fully, that we can take away moral consideration from people who do not accept accountability for their actions? You're gonna concede the debate? Now that things are untangled I feel like this is the best time to continue.