>>53826954I accept your concession that your statement was vapid and will also accept all arguments made on your part following that statement as null.
As we've progressed with this exchange, you've clumsily tried to avoid key issues pointed out in your logic by simply restating the points, and progressively become more erratic and more prone towards appeals to emotion. Work on these aspects of your debate style if you wish to improve.
Your notion that I am "arguing semantics," is also irrational, as my arguments fixate on excerpts of your points (taken verbatim) in a clear attempt to elucidate the substance of the points being made. This is why admitting your statement was vapid is damaging to your overall argument.
You yourself have pointed out the double-think in your own argument
>Men think men are bad, therefore men are bad:>Men are not an authority, therefore a man's word holds no weightso there is no need to go into detail on why it failed, but I will point out the irony in your claiming that I am not a legitimate authority on how women think (ergo my points must be weakened), only to immediately double-back on that statement a single post later, suddenly claiming that I am female-brained. This is the point where you clearly lost track of your own statements. Embarrassing.
All in all, I rate your performance a 6/10. This emotionally-driven style will work on a good number of debaters, but it instantly crumbles against an opponent who chooses to focus on the substance of the arguments being made.
