The Center Stage

Dre. said:

The guy was banned for his take on homosexuality, so no I'm guessing you're not allowed to have the opinion.

Look Blazed it's kinda sad that you would go to that much effort to get rid of me, but if I'm really causing a problem I'll just leave and save you the trouble.

I'm not being a baby, it's just that I came here to learn, and if me being here is 'disrupting' everyone's learning and the productivity of the debate hall in general then it's no good me being here.

Anyway I had a good time here, thanks to everyone who partticipated in debates with me.

Have fun all agreeing with each other lol.

Click to expand...

You're being a baby, and no one is trying to get rid of you you're just being paranoid. ALso people don't get banned for having opposing opinions people get banned for violating the rules. Homophobic remarks are not allowed

And if you're talking about the three Kazoo brought up than that's funny considering a lot of their arguments bordered on violating swf rules. I should know i've been banned from swf enough times.

And for the last time you're not being disruptive so please stop being a big baby, A lot of us may think not like your arguments and poke holes in them and it may seem like we all hate you. But in reality you're something that's been missing, and hopefully you'll actually learn about science around us because it's something I think you're not very knowledgeable on.

I don't mean that in any disrespectful way either, however I think if you're going to be successful your philosophical arguments need to better address scientific claims.

Also please don't take kazoo seriously, I can't speak for everyone but not every atheist in the DH is a dawkins lite.

I'm not being a baby, I'm not leaving because I've had enough of people ganing up on me etc. I don't care about that (I only complained because it was hindering productivity).

I was just going to leave because it seemed people wanted me gone, and if people think I'm disruptive then I'll leave because I don't want to stall the productivity around here.

Particularly someone like Kazoo, if he's going to go to that much effort to get rid of me (where does he get the time to do this?) I thought I might as well save him the trouble.

With my lack of scientific knowledge, I accept that reality, hence why I dn't participate in any debates which require that knowledge.

You might not have realised but I never argued against evo or BB, just against athiest evo and BB, which is philosophical not scientific.

I'd love to still debate, but it depends if people think I actually offer anything or not. I only deiced to leave because I thought the majority of people didn't want me here.

Aesir said:

You're being a baby, and no one is trying to get rid of you you're just being paranoid. ALso people don't get banned for having opposing opinions people get banned for violating the rules. Homophobic remarks are not allowed

And if you're talking about the three Kazoo brought up than that's funny considering a lot of their arguments bordered on violating swf rules. I should know i've been banned from swf enough times.

And for the last time you're not being disruptive so please stop being a big baby, A lot of us may think not like your arguments and poke holes in them and it may seem like we all hate you. But in reality you're something that's been missing, and hopefully you'll actually learn about science around us because it's something I think you're not very knowledgeable on.

I don't mean that in any disrespectful way either, however I think if you're going to be successful your philosophical arguments need to better address scientific claims.

Also please don't take kazoo seriously, I can't speak for everyone but not every atheist in the DH is a dawkins lite.

Click to expand...

Say what now? :S

For anyone claiming that I am trying to witch hunt here, I can assure you that I'm not.

What's this about being a Dawkins-lite? I like his work, but that doesn't mean I am worshiping him.

Dre. said:

I'm not being a baby, I'm not leaving because I've had enough of people ganing up on me etc. I don't care about that (I only complained because it was hindering productivity).

I was just going to leave because it seemed people wanted me gone, and if people think I'm disruptive then I'll leave because I don't want to stall the productivity around here.

Particularly someone like Kazoo, if he's going to go to that much effort to get rid of me (where does he get the time to do this?) I thought I might as well save him the trouble.

With my lack of scientific knowledge, I accept that reality, hence why I dn't participate in any debates which require that knowledge.

You might not have realised but I never argued against evo or BB, just against athiest evo and BB, which is philosophical not scientific.

I'd love to still debate, but it depends if people think I actually offer anything or not. I only deiced to leave because I thought the majority of people didn't want me here.

Click to expand...

I'll agree with Aesir here: You really need to stop bawwing about this.

Having spent several weeks before I got in the DH, there are a few things that stick out to me, and the two biggest were the two aforementioned. So, when I see that someone may even come as close to aping any of their tactics or lines, it sort of raises a red flag for me.

So, in the interest of helping you out, I would like to show how you can avoid that. I'm not going to be combative about it, and I hope you could learn a thing or two about how to debate better. We're all supposed to help each other out here...so there's no need to fight.

Several weeks? I was in the PG for four months lol, I only got in once the mods came back and everyone admitted the DH was bias.

I know I'll get called narrow-minded for saying this, but I think the criticisms I get aren't for my debating style, it's for what I argue.

The reason why I say this is that when I've debated with other people who disagree with me, or applied arguments that I use here in essays who get marked by people who disagree with them, they don't seem to have issues with my style like everyone does here, particularly in essays, where I get rewarded for my style, despite the fact the lecturer's disagree with me.

I'm not saying my arguments are right or that I convert anyone, but people who oppose my arguments don't have any problem at all with my style, just the argument itself, which leads me to think that the criticism I get here is merely because of the positions I take.

The other reason I think this is because I ask people who criticise my arguments to provide arguments for my position that they would consider good, proving it's not just personal bias, yet no one ever does it.

Then there's also the fact that DHers have admitted to the bias in here anyway.

The point of me saying all this is I think Kazoo the only way you'll ever be happy with my debating is if I change what I argue, not how I argue it.

By the way Kazoo, I've said this here a few times before, but from what I understand Dawkins is one of the most disliked academics, particularly in philosophy. Every athiest philosophy student I know tells me he's rubbish and that there's far better athiest material out there to read.

Dre, your opposing viewpoints contribute massively the DH. We can't have a Debate without differences in opinion (unless we play Devil's advocate).

I find some of your arguments rather hard to follow. I don't really care if your lecturer likes your style, I still find it hard to follow and I think others do as well.

I think you should simplify your arguments, and make them easier to understand, they are very wordy at the moment, and it's rather hard to figure out what you mean sometimes.

"Hard to understand" is a result of either their complexity, and/or people not being familiar with the field, it's not because they're badly structured.

The reason I say this is that people who are educated in the field can understand them.

Although I do sympathise with you guys, because I recently read some Thomas Aquinas, and I write in a similar style to him (obviously the intensity of my writing pales in comparison to his, but it's similar terminology and issues) and he's a chore to read, so I can understand where you're coming from.

However, there does seem to be a slight double-standard going on here. If I ever complained about the obscurity of a scientific argument, I'd get criticised for not having scientific knowledge, and that's the reason why I don't understand it.

However, you guys waltz into a philosophical debate, expecting not to need any pre-requisite knowledge, yet as soon as I start applying philosophy-centred terminology and more complex arguments, instead of doing some research yourself, you guys want me to just dumb down my arguments, or just say they don't make sense.

I don't lose sleep over it or anything, it's just some constructive criticism that's all, hope no one takes it personally or overreacts.

Well I've seen several cases where someone (like me) asks for an explanation and you just say something like "said it before read back" or "you can't possibly understand it".

Dre. said:

"Hard to understand" is a result of either their complexity, and/or people not being familiar with the field, it's not because they're badly structured.

The reason I say this is that people who are educated in the field can understand them.

Although I do sympathise with you guys, because I recently read some Thomas Aquinas, and I write in a similar style to him (obviously the intensity of my writing pales in comparison to his, but it's similar terminology and issues) and he's a chore to read, so I can understand where you're coming from.

However, there does seem to be a slight double-standard going on here. If I ever complained about the obscurity of a scientific argument, I'd get criticised for not having scientific knowledge, and that's the reason why I don't understand it.

However, you guys waltz into a philosophical debate, expecting not to need any pre-requisite knowledge, yet as soon as I start applying philosophy-centred terminology and more complex arguments, instead of doing some research yourself, you guys want me to just dumb down my arguments, or just say they don't make sense.

I don't lose sleep over it or anything, it's just some constructive criticism that's all, hope no one takes it personally or overreacts.

Click to expand...

Dre, there shouldn't be a double standard. If you get criticized for not having enough scientific knowledge then said person is AS guilty if not MORE guilty than you for not explaining an argument correctly. I've told you before, you must write for your audience. With a scientific explanation especially it shouldn't be very hard to go through an argument more thoroughly and refer to more evidence.

I'm sorry Dre, but if anyone ever says "you don't have the knowledge to understand argument X, Y, and Z" it's just a cop-out. It's also a cop-out teachers use all the time. I usually go look up whatever they claim can't be understood. I ask that despite the fact that others on the forum have used such a cop-out on you that you act in a better manner. Two wrongs don't make a right.

-blazed

I dumb down my arguments on politics/economics because no one is ever going to follow me unless they're taken a few poli sci or economics courses.

If the audience can't understand you, you already lost.

Dre. said:

"Hard to understand" is a result of either their complexity, and/or people not being familiar with the field, it's not because they're badly structured.

Click to expand...

Hard to understand can also result form a lack of clarity. When you use terms without defining them, especially when you use them in a different way than it is colloquially used, confusion is almost certainly going to follow.

I never said 'you don't have enough knowledge to understand my arguments'. Yet again my words get twisted.

I said that if you complain about my arguments being hard to understand, it's probably because you're not familiar with the field, because philosophy students and lecturers have no problem understanding my arguments.

This is a debate hall, I shouldn't have to simplify my arguments in philosophical debates simply because someone hasn't done any research. If you participate in a philosophical debate, then it is assumed that you consider yourself authoratitive enough (for undergraduate level) to be participating in it.

It's the same with science, are your arguments flawed simply because I haven't done enough study to understand them? No, it's my problem that I don't understand them due to my lack of knowledge.

The perfect example was when RDK said I wasn't being clear when I used the word 'being', and even went so far as to say I was making up my own terminology. Being is just basic philosophy terminology, every student understands what it means, if I go into a philosophical debate with someone I expect them to know what the basic terminology is.

That'd be like me going to into a scientific debate and not knowing what atom or molecule meant, and then blaming you for my difficulty in understanding your arguments, and saying you're just making up your own terminology.

Dre. said:

I never said 'you don't have enough knowledge to understand my arguments'. Yet again my words get twisted.

I said that if you complain about my arguments being hard to understand, it's probably because you're not familiar with the field, because philosophy students and lecturers have no problem understanding my arguments.

This is a debate hall, I shouldn't have to simplify my arguments in philosophical debates simply because someone hasn't done any research. If you participate in a philosophical debate, then it is assumed that you consider yourself authoratitive enough (for undergraduate level) to be participating in it.

It's the same with science, are your arguments flawed simply because I haven't done enough study to understand them? No, it's my problem that I don't understand them due to my lack of knowledge.

The perfect example was when RDK said I wasn't being clear when I used the word 'being', and even went so far as to say I was making up my own terminology. Being is just basic philosophy terminology, every student understands what it means, if I go into a philosophical debate with someone I expect them to know what the basic terminology is.

That'd be like me going to into a scientific debate and not knowing what atom or molecule meant, and then blaming you for my difficulty in understanding your arguments, and saying you're just making up your own terminology.

Click to expand...

Dre, I feel like a broken record here...

Either be willing to explain your terminology further when asked, or don't participate in debates here. You can't always expect people to have the same level of knowledge in a subject as you. If you don't understand what atom/molecule mean then it's VERY EASY to explain these things to people. No matter what subject we're talking about, it's STILL A COP-OUT to just say "go do more research first"...

-blazed

But in a debate hall, if you need to ask for clarfication of basic terminology, then you're not knowledgeable enough to be participating in that debate. Someone who doesn't know what an atom or molecule is is in no position to argue that evolution theory is wrong.

If Joe Schmoe asks me about my ideas on issue X, I'm not going to say 'you're not knowledgeable enough, you don't understand the basic terminology', because I'm not an elitist, I don't assume my intellect surpasses his overall, because that isn't a debate, he hasn't assumed he is knowledgeable enough in that field to prove me wrong.

The other problem with philosophical clarification (this also goes for when people don't read my previous posts and ask questions I've already answered) is that often clarification takes wall of text to do adequately.

Take the Homosexuality Thread for example, it shouldn't have to be my responsibility to constantly re-write walls of text to make up for people's negligence in not reading my previous posts, it stalls the debate unecessarily, this is why I wanted you guys to just elect one person to debate me.

Even when I did constantly re-explain myself, people like CK would just chime in and say 'this debate is pointless he's just constantly repeating himself', so I can't win either way lol.

Dre. said:

Take the Homosexuality Thread for example, it shouldn't have to be my responsibility to constantly re-write walls of text to make up for people's negligence in not reading my previous posts, it stalls the debate necessarily, this is why I wanted you guys to just elect one person to debate me.

Click to expand...

When someone posts a complaint, when they are operating under a false assumption, point that out and correct it instead of pointing blame at them. When they are operating under the assumption that natural means "occurring in nature," while you mean something completely else when you say natural, then point that out. Don't just reiterate the same points that invited the misconceptions to begin with. All of that would have been easily avoided if you posted a few lines of what is and is not natural or if natural has a specific definition in the field of philosophy, a link a philosophy site. As far as I can tell, I was the first one to provide a definition for it and I joined in late, so it's hardly anyone's fault for misinterpreting your argument when the base of the argument was never clearly defined. It isn't a problem with people ignoring your previous posts, its a problem with the posts themselves.

But in a debate hall, if you need to ask for clarification of basic terminology, then you're not knowledgeable enough to be participating in that debate.

Click to expand...

I'm with others when they say that this is a cop out. We don't all have the same backgrounds, I'm sure our different fields have different sets of jargon; so just because we don't know specifically what a term means in a particular context does not mean it should exclude us from the entire discussion, since once that initial barrier is overcome, they become productive to the conversation and offer an alternative point of view. And considering the above example of "natural," discounting everyone else for not knowing how your using a specific term seems like a cop out.

The word natural is not what I'm talking about, because I understand that has multiple interpretations, and I never got angry at annoyed for misunderstanding my definition of natural, only when people asked questions I had already answered as a result of not reading my previous posts.

I can understand people not understanding my arguments, that's fine. My problem is when people assume my arguments are bad merely because they don't understand them. I know my arguments are understandable because they are written in a similar style to professional philosophers (obviously the intensity of mine pale in comparison to theirs) and philosophy students, theists and atheists alike, understand them just fine.

It's a 'cop out' if it was a debate where multiple fields are relevant, but in purely philosophical debates, you shouldn't be participating if you are not learned to some extent in the field of philosophy, the same goes with scientific debates etc.

Multiple fields are relevant to the Homosexuality thread, so people not being well-versed in philosophy, but feeling they are authorative enough to participate is perfectly fine, because they can contribute something outside of philosophy. The only problem I have in that thread is people not reading my previous posts and slowing the debate by repeatedly asking the same questions, and perhaps there's too many people on the liberal side of the argument for the debate to be productive.

I'm talking about things like the Abortion thread where I was told to stop using thought experiments, yet in abortion ethics thought experiments are crucial to good arguments, in fact the most famous abortion arguments are thought experiments. Saying I shouldn't use thought experiments is like tying my hands behind my back, or telling M2K not to use Shuttle Loop or to gimp to try even it out, when that's not what a debate hall is for.

Another example I mentioned before is RDK saying I wasn't clear when I used the word 'being'. Those are examples I'm talking about.

To reiterate, not understanding my arguments is fine, but calling my arguments bad because you are not familiar enough with philosophy to understand them is what irritates me, just as it would irritate you guys if I criticised your arguments because I haven't studied any science or politics.

You have to remember it's a debate hall, not a preach hall. A debate hall is supposed to harbour intelligent discussion. A preach hall is where one teaches another, in which someone with the higher quantity of knowledge is explaining/simplifying an argument for the one with the lesser quantity of knowledge.

I'm not saying that if someone asks for clarification I won't tell them, there's nothing wrong with that, the only reason why I came here myself is to learn.

Guest you yourself can testify that when someone asks for clarification of something I tell them.

What I don't like is getting criticised simply because people don't understand my argments, when my arguments make perfect sense, and I know this because philosophy students and lecturers understand them just fine.

If anything, being a young, under-read ungraduate, my arguments are probably too basic if anything.

I'm getting the feeling there's a misconception about me. I don't care that my arguments get criticised, that's healthy and productive, it's what you guys are criticising them for that I don't feel is warranted.

If they are criticizing arguments without understanding them then they should read this. It should clear up a lot of issues. Moral of the story, don't modus tollens when considering an argument.

Apart from the fact I don't understand how that reference related to anything, it made a lot of assumptions.

It just assumed all athiests and theists have the conclusion first and then just make premises to suit it, which isn't always the case.

Dre. said:

Apart from the fact I don't understand how that reference related to anything

Click to expand...

If Dre's argument is right, then homosexual acts are wrong.
Homosexual act's are not wrong.
Therefore, Dre's argument is wrong.

With this line of reasoning, one not need to understand your argument to criticize that it is wrong, which is exactly what we were talking about. Do you think there was a different reason behind it?

It just assumed all atheists and theists have the conclusion first and then just make premises to suit it, which isn't always the case.

Click to expand...

It didn't make this assumption. It said that once we formed our conclusion, when we see a new argument for the other side, that conflicts with our worldview, that we are going to object to it more than if it agrees with us. Nowhere did it say that atheists and theists form a conclusion first and then make this argument against the other side.

No I think you're right, I just didn't realise that's what you were pertaining to sorry.

The reason why I think your right is because no one except me actually made a detailed argument for their position, they just attacked mine. They assumed the absence of evidence for non-homosexuality is evidence for pro-homosexuality.

The fact that no one actually had a detailed argument for their position, and only one person actually attempted to make one when I asked them to (and even then it was evident he had just come up with it) suggests that they all assumed that the permissibilty of homosexuality was self-evident.

This however wasn't evident for the last two thosuands years, only in modern times. The fact they assumed it was self-evident leads me to believe they believe so merely because of their culture.

They can criticise my arguments as much as they like, but an appeal to nature is always better than an appeal to culture.

Natural rights. That's the argument most of us will use, since homosexual doesn't infringe on anyone's natural rights why be concerned with it?

I take issue with what you just said thought "but an appeal to nature is always better than an appeal to culture." Both are equally bad. What is natural or culturally acceptable doesn't equate what is right or moral.

But at least in appealing to nature you're appealing to something universal and unchanging. Appealing to culture is circular, your defence for morals is essentially the fact you made them up.

Dre. said:

But at least in appealing to nature you're appealing to something universal and unchanging. Appealing to culture is circular, your defence for morals is essentially the fact you made them up.

Click to expand...

Nature is almost by definition forever changing...

How do you define nature?

-blazed

Mewter said:

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, Dre., but would your definition of "natural" broadly be described as "anything found in nature that does not include exclusively human behavior?"

Click to expand...

So if sentient alien beings existed would they be considered natural?

How do you define "exclusively human behavior"? Behavior that is "unnatural" ... is this going to become circular?

-blazed

I think it's the perfect example of circular.

...but not everyone agreed.

When I say "natural" I mean what we are strucured to do. Nourishment is obivously a good, so eating food is natural.

It's not every single thing humans can do, or just bodily impulses. What I call natural is that which fulfills the human form. What that means is the things that make humans flourish the way a human is supposed to. Obviously, what is natural for a shark to fulfill its own form, or flourish is different.

I'm not saying my take on it is right, but in appealing to nature your appealing to something that governs humanity, not something that is governed by humanity (culture).

I find it ridiculous to assume that a human creation (culture), could tell us how to live.

Dre. said:

What that means is the things that make humans flourish the way a human is supposed to.

Click to expand...

And who judges what is and isn't "the way a human is supposed to"? This is why I see this argument is circular. You never quite get to the point. You always leave it vague so that if ever anyone shows a flaw you can change "the way a human is supposed to" to fit whatever criteria you want...

-blazed

Dre. said:

When I say "natural" I mean what we are strucured to do. Nourishment is obivously a good, so eating food is natural.

Click to expand...

You can say the same thing for sex. IE: Sex is obviously good, so having sex is natural. In which case why be against homosexuality? Sex has myriad of good uses out of simple procreation.

I really don't mean to jump down on you cause I know you hate being ganged up.

I wanted to answer a question in the DH, but I don't have posting privileges there. I know this topic pretty well so I figured why not.

Dre. said:

Might I point out, that had we listened to religious people and not encouraged multiple partners and perhaps things like homosexuality, the aids problem would probably be no where near as big as it is in the first place correct?

Click to expand...

No, not really.

First thing worth pointing out is that the majority of HIV is spread by unprotected heterosexual intercourse, not homosexual.

I'll try to keep this as apolitical as I can (if that is possible). Back in 2000 George W. Bush was elected, riding on a popular neoconservative social, moral and political agenda. Right wing religious thinking with well publicized pro-abstinence and anti-abortion stances played an important role throughout his campaign.

I'll start with changes made in USA. It was argued that because condoms do not provide ''perfect'' protection it is irresponsible to promote their use and abstinence should be promoted instead. The Bush administration pressured the CDC to issue new regulations. It became mandatory for any organisation receiving funding for HIV prevention to ensure that any sex education be required to include information on the "lack of effectiveness of condoms''. The CDC subsequently removed a fact sheet entitled ''Condoms and Their Use in Preventing HIV Infection and Other STDs'' from their website. This page was replaced by a new fact sheet that omitted instructions on appropriate condom use and more importantly, evidence showing that condom education does not encourage sex in young people.

The Bush administration then went on to boost Abstinence Only Programmes. SPRANS (Special Programs of Regional and National Significance Community-Based Abstinence Education), had dispensed over $339 million by the end of 2006. Section 510 of the Welfare Reform Act had poured $300 million over 6 years for programmes with the exclusive purpose of promoting abstinence. Information on contraception, sexual identity and human sexuality was prohibited! The Adolescent Family Life Act received $12 million a year from 2003 for Abstinence Only programs. This was not a small amount of money by anybody's standards.

The international consequences. The USA contributed billions of dollars to the international AIDS/HIV program. Unfortunately, this was undermined by two congressional ammendments: The Pitt amendment where ''…at least 33% (of the prevention funds) should be expended for abstinence-until-marriage programs'' and The Smith amendment that allows "faithbased" groups to refuse to provide information about proven methods of protection against HIV/AIDS (namely condoms).

The US was accused by Stephen Lewis, the UN Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, of cutting funding for condoms in Uganda. These actions dented some international HIV prevention campaigns placing many people, particularly women in sub-Saharan Africa, at increased risk of HIV acquisition.


Now the big question is, does abstinence work? Perhaps the Bush Administration was justified. In 2007, a very large, long-term (10 years) evaluation was published, involving over 2000 youths who were randomly assigned to either receive well established Federally Funded abstinence-only programs or not (the controls). Here is a link: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/impactabstinence.pdf. Outcome measures included sexual abstinence, risk behaviour, knowledge of the consequences of sexual activity and perceptions about risk of pregnancy and STIs. The results:

49% in both groups remained abstinent
23% in both groups had sex and always used a condom
17% in both groups had sex and sometimes used a condom
4% in both groups never used condoms
The age at coitarche (first sexual intercourse) was identical in both groups (14.9 years)
The overall number of sexual partners in both groups was virtually identical

Knowledge about STIs and STI risk behaviours and the potential benefits of condoms for pregnancy prevention and STI prevention were poor in both groups. Overall, the youth assigned to the intervention program considered that condoms to be less effective for preventing STIs.

So to answer your question: No, not really. Things are probably worsened.

My name was discussed in The Jedi Council thread, but some Smash Debaters said that I was not very active. So, I decided to post some more.

Let me give a try:

The "Homosexuality" thread I created
One of my posts in the "Homosexuality" thread
Another post of mine in the "Homosexuality" thread
My post in the "thoughs on knowledge" thread
My post in the "Gun Control Laws in the USA" thread


Edit: The "One, two and three national capitals" thread I created

Discuss my name too!!!! lol

If they do apply I will help support and recommend them, as they are better debaters than I am and it is kind of sad that they did not at least ask to be temp. debaters (with the exception of ICG who is a temp. debater.)

Also how do I do the show single post thing? So I do not have to quote my self.

I am not posting here for me because I do not think I am ready yet, however If the following people are temp. debaters I request you to let them into the debate halls.

REL38
GrimTuesday
INSANE CRAZY GUY

Here is the blog/debate that caused me to argue that they are ready to enter the debate hall, if they are temp debaters (I know ICG is but I do not know about the other two.)

Case for REL38: Even though I disagree with her/him on the subject of master hand, She/He does come up with really good points at times and I do respect her/his post.

Case for GrimTuesday: He saved my debate/blog not once but twice countering with sound logic and not over exerting him self like I did several times. Plus he has good construction in his thoughts and backs it up with evidence.

Case for INSANE CRAZY GUY: His letter size scares me at times but he is really good at convincing the message, and though his post seem far fetched at times he does construct a convening argument when he needs to, also he backs up his post with reason.

Click to expand...

Just so I do not have to flip back and forth between pages if Dark Horse response and to put my response in context.

Thanks NaCl

anyway I would like to say I think ICG should be considered for a smash debater. He though opinionated at times he is good at forming arguments (better than me) If you wish me to support this statement I can dig up some examples. Also he brings unique thoughts and arguments to the table. So I am asking vote ICG for Smash debater.