Datasets:

0x-YuAN

/

NLP_explainable

like 0

"The reason abortion at any stage of a pregnancy is unethical is because you can not justify killing a human life based on its stage of development ... ... Abortion has its place . In the need where the mothers health is endangered its completely understandable but its not understandable when its done out of convenience ."

"How do you define `` convenience `` ?"

DISAGREE

"but its not understandable when its done out of convenience ."

"How do you define `` convenience `` ?"

"The reason abortion at any stage of a pregnancy is unethical is because you can not justify killing a human life based on its stage of development ... ... Abortion has its place . In the need where the mothers health is endangered its completely understandable but its not understandable when its done out of convenience ."

"How do you define `` convenience `` ?"

DISAGREE

"understandable but its not understandable when its done out of convenience ."

"How do you define `` convenience `` ?"

"The reason abortion at any stage of a pregnancy is unethical is because you can not justify killing a human life based on its stage of development ... ... Abortion has its place . In the need where the mothers health is endangered its completely understandable but its not understandable when its done out of convenience ."

"How do you define `` convenience `` ?"

DISAGREE

"Abortion has its place . In the need where the mothers health is endangered its completely understandable but its not understandable when its done out of convenience ."

"How do you define `` convenience `` ?"

"They are constructs of man ."

"if the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily . If they are produced from human minds , and human minds are mutually contradictory , then how can the constructs be absolute ? Therefore , the laws of logic are not human constructs ."

DISAGREE

"They are constructs of man ."

"how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily ."

"They are constructs of man ."

"if the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily . If they are produced from human minds , and human minds are mutually contradictory , then how can the constructs be absolute ? Therefore , the laws of logic are not human constructs ."

DISAGREE

"They are constructs of man ."

"if the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily . , the laws of logic are not human"

"They are constructs of man ."

"if the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily . If they are produced from human minds , and human minds are mutually contradictory , then how can the constructs be absolute ? Therefore , the laws of logic are not human constructs ."

DISAGREE

"They are constructs of man ."

"if the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily ."

"They are constructs of man ."

"if the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily . If they are produced from human minds , and human minds are mutually contradictory , then how can the constructs be absolute ? Therefore , the laws of logic are not human constructs ."

DISAGREE

"They are constructs of man ."

"Therefore , the laws of logic are not human constructs"

"They are constructs of man ."

"if the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily . If they are produced from human minds , and human minds are mutually contradictory , then how can the constructs be absolute ? Therefore , the laws of logic are not human constructs ."

DISAGREE

"They are constructs of man ."

"Therefore , the laws of logic are not human constructs ."

"I know of no one that is pro life believes the mother should die so the baby can live ."

"Obviously not . If the right to life trumps all other rights , then it follows that the mother 's right to life and the child 's right to life cancel each other out . Mind you , if it 's her choice then the pro-life movement endorses such heroism , right ?"

DISAGREE

"I know of no one that is pro life believes the mother should die so the baby can live ."

"Obviously , if it 's her choice then the pro-life movement endorses such heroism"

"I know of no one that is pro life believes the mother should die so the baby can live ."

"Obviously not . If the right to life trumps all other rights , then it follows that the mother 's right to life and the child 's right to life cancel each other out . Mind you , if it 's her choice then the pro-life movement endorses such heroism , right ?"

DISAGREE

"no one that is pro life believes the mother should die"

"then it follows that the mother 's right to life and the child 's right to life cancel each other out . Mind you , if it 's her choice then the pro-life movement endorses such heroism , right ?"

"I guess the question should be , why does the pharmacist think he knows what 's better for the patient than the doctor does ?"

"In all fairness the Pharmacist does serve an important vetting role in the supply of medication to patients- they check what has been prescribed by the doctor against they know about and correct errors that are made ( which do happen ... I was once given a 7 week course of anti-malarials which turned out to be suitable for taking no more than 28 days at a time ) . That aside I 'd agree with sinjin ."

DISAGREE

"why does the pharmacist think he knows what 's better for the patient than the doctor does ?"

"In all fairness the Pharmacist does serve an important vetting role in the supply of medication to ..."

"I guess the question should be , why does the pharmacist think he knows what 's better for the patient than the doctor does ?"

"In all fairness the Pharmacist does serve an important vetting role in the supply of medication to patients- they check what has been prescribed by the doctor against they know about and correct errors that are made ( which do happen ... I was once given a 7 week course of anti-malarials which turned out to be suitable for taking no more than 28 days at a time ) . That aside I 'd agree with sinjin ."

DISAGREE

"why does the pharmacist think he knows what 's better for the patient than the doctor does ?"

"Pharmacist does serve an important vetting role in the supply of medication to patients- they check what has been prescribed by the doctor against they know about and correct errors that are made"

"I guess the question should be , why does the pharmacist think he knows what 's better for the patient than the doctor does ?"

"In all fairness the Pharmacist does serve an important vetting role in the supply of medication to patients- they check what has been prescribed by the doctor against they know about and correct errors that are made ( which do happen ... I was once given a 7 week course of anti-malarials which turned out to be suitable for taking no more than 28 days at a time ) . That aside I 'd agree with sinjin ."

DISAGREE

"why does the pharmacist think he knows what 's better for the patient than the doctor does ?"

"the Pharmacist does serve an important vetting role in the supply of medication to"

"I guess the question should be , why does the pharmacist think he knows what 's better for the patient than the doctor does ?"

"In all fairness the Pharmacist does serve an important vetting role in the supply of medication to patients- they check what has been prescribed by the doctor against they know about and correct errors that are made ( which do happen ... I was once given a 7 week course of anti-malarials which turned out to be suitable for taking no more than 28 days at a time ) . That aside I 'd agree with sinjin ."

DISAGREE

"why does the pharmacist think he knows what 's better for the patient than the doctor does"

"they check what has been prescribed by the doctor against they know about and correct errors that are made"

"I guess the question should be , why does the pharmacist think he knows what 's better for the patient than the doctor does ?"

"In all fairness the Pharmacist does serve an important vetting role in the supply of medication to patients- they check what has been prescribed by the doctor against they know about and correct errors that are made ( which do happen ... I was once given a 7 week course of anti-malarials which turned out to be suitable for taking no more than 28 days at a time ) . That aside I 'd agree with sinjin ."

DISAGREE

"why does the pharmacist think he knows what 's better for the patient than the doctor does ?"

"Pharmacist does serve an important vetting role in the supply of medication to patients- they check what has been prescribed by the doctor"

"Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement , including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture . While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice , the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally , as they would a science textbook . Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation , Adam and Eve , Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God , human beings , and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation . Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth . Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts . We the undersigned , Christian clergy from many different traditions , believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist . We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth , one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests . To reject this truth or to treat it as  “ one theory among others ” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children . We believe that among God ’ s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator . To argue that God ’ s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God , an act of hubris . We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge . We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion , two very different , but complementary , forms of truth ."

"Over 10,000 signatures of Christian Clergy have been collected , and have endorsed this letter ."

AGREE

"Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement , including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture ."

"Over 10,000 signatures of Christian Clergy have been collected , and have endorsed this letter ."

"Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement , including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture . While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice , the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally , as they would a science textbook . Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation , Adam and Eve , Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God , human beings , and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation . Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth . Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts . We the undersigned , Christian clergy from many different traditions , believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist . We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth , one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests . To reject this truth or to treat it as  “ one theory among others ” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children . We believe that among God ’ s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator . To argue that God ’ s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God , an act of hubris . We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge . We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion , two very different , but complementary , forms of truth ."

"Over 10,000 signatures of Christian Clergy have been collected , and have endorsed this letter ."

AGREE

"Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement , including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture . While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice , the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally , as they would a science textbook . Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation , Adam and Eve , Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God , human beings , and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation . Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth . Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts . We the undersigned , Christian clergy from many different traditions , believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist . We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth , one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests . To reject this truth or to treat it as  one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children . We believe that among God ’ s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator . To argue that God ’ s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God , an act of hubris . We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge . We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion , two very different , but complementary , forms of truth ."

"Over 10,000 signatures of Christian Clergy have been collected , and have endorsed this letter ."

"Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement , including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture . While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice , the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally , as they would a science textbook . Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation , Adam and Eve , Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God , human beings , and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation . Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth . Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts . We the undersigned , Christian clergy from many different traditions , believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist . We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth , one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests . To reject this truth or to treat it as  “ one theory among others ” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children . We believe that among God ’ s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator . To argue that God ’ s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God , an act of hubris . We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge . We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion , two very different , but complementary , forms of truth ."

"Over 10,000 signatures of Christian Clergy have been collected , and have endorsed this letter ."

AGREE

"We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion , two very different , but complementary , forms of truth ."

"Over 10,000 signatures of Christian Clergy have been collected , and have endorsed this letter ."

"Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement , including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture . While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice , the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally , as they would a science textbook . Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation , Adam and Eve , Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God , human beings , and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation . Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth . Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts . We the undersigned , Christian clergy from many different traditions , believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist . We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth , one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests . To reject this truth or to treat it as  “ one theory among others ” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children . We believe that among God ’ s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator . To argue that God ’ s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God , an act of hubris . We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge . We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion , two very different , but complementary , forms of truth ."

"Over 10,000 signatures of Christian Clergy have been collected , and have endorsed this letter ."

AGREE

"virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth"

"signatures of Christian Clergy have been collected , have endorsed this letter ."

"How many children have you adopted ?"

"Go do a Google search and find out . How many babies have you supported killing ?"

DISAGREE

"How many children have you adopted ?"

"How many babies have you supported killing ?"

"How many children have you adopted ?"

"Go do a Google search and find out . How many babies have you supported killing ?"

DISAGREE

"How many children have you adopted ?"

"How many babies have you supported killing ?"

"How many children have you adopted ?"

"Go do a Google search and find out . How many babies have you supported killing ?"

DISAGREE

"children adopted"

"babies killing"

"That can be proven ."

"No it ca n't . Scientific theories are n't `` proven `` . You can observe the fact of gravity but you ca n't `` prove `` that the theory that explains it is correct . In fact , the theory of gravitation is one of the least secure theories of modern science ."

DISAGREE

"That can be proven ."

"No it ca n't . Scientific theories are n't `` proven `` ."

"That can be proven ."

"No it ca n't . Scientific theories are n't `` proven `` . You can observe the fact of gravity but you ca n't `` prove `` that the theory that explains it is correct . In fact , the theory of gravitation is one of the least secure theories of modern science ."

DISAGREE

"That can be proven ."

"No it ca n't ."

"That can be proven ."

"No it ca n't . Scientific theories are n't `` proven `` . You can observe the fact of gravity but you ca n't `` prove `` that the theory that explains it is correct . In fact , the theory of gravitation is one of the least secure theories of modern science ."

DISAGREE

"That can be proven ."

"No it ca n't You can observe the fact of gravity but you ca n't `` prove `` that the theory that explains it is correct . ,"

"The main business of PP is providing contraception and offering sex ed ?"

"By number of people , absolutely . Take a look at the table : http : //www.plannedparenthood.org/lib ... 2Services.html Service No . of Procedures Reversible Contraceptive Clients — Women 2,208,483 Emergency Contraception Clients 633,756 Tubal Sterilization Clients 680 Reversible Contraceptive Clients — Men 60,476 Vasectomy Clients 2,522 773 Abortion Procedures 227,375 HIV Testing Clients — Women 126,477 HIV Testing Clients — Men 48,991 Prenatal Clients 15,860 Infertility Clients 325 Colposcopy Procedures 31,248 Cryotherapy Procedures 3,913 LOOP/LEEP Procedures 1,781 Midlife Clients 10,575 Pregnancy Tests 1,081,772 Breast Exams/Breast Care 1,062,727 Primary Care Clients 24,483 STI Procedures , Women and Men 1,255,036 Other Services — Women 58,626 Other Services — Men 17,905 Totals 6,873,011 Total Unduplicated Clients 2,744,554 Or to shorten it down : 227K Abortions : 5,426K Birth control : 175K STD test : 1,081K Pregnancy test : 15K OB checks : 1,102K Gynecological : 1,356K Other"

AGREE

"The main business of PP is providing contraception and offering sex ed ?"

"By number of people , absolutely ."

"The main business of PP is providing contraception and offering sex ed ?"

"By number of people , absolutely . Take a look at the table : http : //www.plannedparenthood.org/lib ... 2Services.html Service No . of Procedures Reversible Contraceptive Clients — Women 2,208,483 Emergency Contraception Clients 633,756 Tubal Sterilization Clients 680 Reversible Contraceptive Clients — Men 60,476 Vasectomy Clients 2,522 773 Abortion Procedures 227,375 HIV Testing Clients — Women 126,477 HIV Testing Clients — Men 48,991 Prenatal Clients 15,860 Infertility Clients 325 Colposcopy Procedures 31,248 Cryotherapy Procedures 3,913 LOOP/LEEP Procedures 1,781 Midlife Clients 10,575 Pregnancy Tests 1,081,772 Breast Exams/Breast Care 1,062,727 Primary Care Clients 24,483 STI Procedures , Women and Men 1,255,036 Other Services — Women 58,626 Other Services — Men 17,905 Totals 6,873,011 Total Unduplicated Clients 2,744,554 Or to shorten it down : 227K Abortions : 5,426K Birth control : 175K STD test : 1,081K Pregnancy test : 15K OB checks : 1,102K Gynecological : 1,356K Other"

AGREE

"The main business of PP is providing contraception and offering sex ed ?"

"Take a look at the table :"

"The main business of PP is providing contraception and offering sex ed ?"

"By number of people , absolutely . Take a look at the table : http : //www.plannedparenthood.org/lib ... 2Services.html Service No . of Procedures Reversible Contraceptive Clients — Women 2,208,483 Emergency Contraception Clients 633,756 Tubal Sterilization Clients 680 Reversible Contraceptive Clients — Men 60,476 Vasectomy Clients 2,522 773 Abortion Procedures 227,375 HIV Testing Clients — Women 126,477 HIV Testing Clients — Men 48,991 Prenatal Clients 15,860 Infertility Clients 325 Colposcopy Procedures 31,248 Cryotherapy Procedures 3,913 LOOP/LEEP Procedures 1,781 Midlife Clients 10,575 Pregnancy Tests 1,081,772 Breast Exams/Breast Care 1,062,727 Primary Care Clients 24,483 STI Procedures , Women and Men 1,255,036 Other Services — Women 58,626 Other Services — Men 17,905 Totals 6,873,011 Total Unduplicated Clients 2,744,554 Or to shorten it down : 227K Abortions : 5,426K Birth control : 175K STD test : 1,081K Pregnancy test : 15K OB checks : 1,102K Gynecological : 1,356K Other"

AGREE

"The main business of PP is providing contraception and offering sex ed ?"

"By number of people , absolutely . Take a look at the table : http : //www.plannedparenthood.org/lib ... 2Services.html Reversible Contraceptive Clients — Women 2,208,483"

"So , this magical program that is supposed to represent life actually can also produce aeroplanes ! I 'd like to see DNA morph into such things !"

"you based this ( and other claims ) on a summary of the biomorphs program at website that either a ) did n't also provide dawkins limitations on the program or b ) had the limitations and you did n't bother to relay this information to the forum . You then make incredulous statements about how unrealistic the biomorphs are . any quotations of web pages are irrelevant because they do not address the basic issue that you are suggesting dawkins puts the biomorphs forth as a model of evolution and natural selection . This is not true as i have quoted part of his book that puts limitations on the biomorphs program , and draws attention to what `` morals `` should be drawn out of the biomorphs ."

DISAGREE

"So , this magical program that is supposed to represent life actually can also produce aeroplanes !"

"you based this ( and other claims ) on a summary of the biomorphs program did n't also provide dawkins limitations on the program ``"

"So , this magical program that is supposed to represent life actually can also produce aeroplanes ! I 'd like to see DNA morph into such things !"

"you based this ( and other claims ) on a summary of the biomorphs program at website that either a ) did n't also provide dawkins limitations on the program or b ) had the limitations and you did n't bother to relay this information to the forum . You then make incredulous statements about how unrealistic the biomorphs are . any quotations of web pages are irrelevant because they do not address the basic issue that you are suggesting dawkins puts the biomorphs forth as a model of evolution and natural selection . This is not true as i have quoted part of his book that puts limitations on the biomorphs program , and draws attention to what `` morals `` should be drawn out of the biomorphs ."

DISAGREE

"So , this magical program that is supposed to represent life actually can also produce aeroplanes !"

"you based this ( and other claims ) on a summary of the biomorphs program at website that either a ) did n't also provide dawkins limitations"

"So , this magical program that is supposed to represent life actually can also produce aeroplanes ! I 'd like to see DNA morph into such things !"

"you based this ( and other claims ) on a summary of the biomorphs program at website that either a ) did n't also provide dawkins limitations on the program or b ) had the limitations and you did n't bother to relay this information to the forum . You then make incredulous statements about how unrealistic the biomorphs are . any quotations of web pages are irrelevant because they do not address the basic issue that you are suggesting dawkins puts the biomorphs forth as a model of evolution and natural selection . This is not true as i have quoted part of his book that puts limitations on the biomorphs program , and draws attention to what `` morals `` should be drawn out of the biomorphs ."

DISAGREE

"this magical program that is supposed to represent life actually can also produce aeroplanes I 'd like to see DNA morph into such things"

"This is not true i have quoted part of his book that puts limitations on the biomorphs program ,"

"I 'm not surprised that no one on your side of the debate would correct you , but wolves and dogs are both members of the same species ."

"Dealt with . Wolves and dogs share a genus , not a species . Along with coyotes and jackels . See above for lots of transitionals , also ."

DISAGREE

"wolves and dogs are both members of the same species ."

"Wolves and dogs share a genus , not a species ."

"I 'm not surprised that no one on your side of the debate would correct you , but wolves and dogs are both members of the same species ."

"Dealt with . Wolves and dogs share a genus , not a species . Along with coyotes and jackels . See above for lots of transitionals , also ."

DISAGREE

"I 'm not surprised that no one on your side of the debate would correct you , but wolves and dogs are both members of the same species ."

"Wolves and dogs share a genus , not a species ."

"I 'm not surprised that no one on your side of the debate would correct you , but wolves and dogs are both members of the same species ."

"Dealt with . Wolves and dogs share a genus , not a species . Along with coyotes and jackels . See above for lots of transitionals , also ."

DISAGREE

"wolves and dogs are both members of the same species ."

"Wolves and dogs share a genus , not a species"

"As for who plays 'word-games ' , it seems that you missed this ... # 19 `` New peppered moth stuff `` He went on for some time trying to undermine my posts based on the use of a word which most people have a problem with . There 's also the problem with Darwin claiming a tautology was a better term than `` Natural Selection `` , this was debated for some time , even though I posted the actual words of Darwin . The thread `` Unto the Ages of Ages `` developed into a debate over whether something could be both `` more accurate ' and wrong , thanks Ursus ! WJA and SLP argued over the word 'applied ' , then 'published ' ; whether Dembski had , and then changed this to 'proved ' ( see `` Looking for intelligence `` thread ) Lurch/Ungerdunn etc over what is a 'noun ' . Multiple personalities aside , this debate over 'nouns ' lasted for months . He resorted to no better argument then 'you 're wrong ' . A great debating style ! As for debating styles .... Waxy enters a debate on Science/Math says that I 've been refuted somewhere else , by someone else , and then leaves ; does the same thing on these Creation/Evolution debates ... only adds a few insults in the process ... not wishing to debate , just to name call . Mach is happy to admit he does n't read my posts/skims over them but wants to both debate and not debate them - claiming he 's got a time problem ... and asks me to post stuff he 's already replied to Would you count as a word-game the two incidents where you 've made a claim about me being insulting , and when I 've asked you to point it out , you ca n't ? One time you were so flustered you told me you were going to warn everyone about me . You make allegations then do n't back them up . Archilochus makes allegations that I do n't understand the word 'chance ' but is un-prepared to come up with a definition , just repeats that I do n't understand it . He 'll go on repeating this , because it is a replacement for debate . All the while you guys are very shy when it comes to debating each other 's mistakes ; such as Hank describing the world as egg-shaped , etc . In short you make so many 'just-so ' statements with little recourse to evidence , in an effort to drown out anyone who differs in opinion from yourself . Hence the total unwillingness to seriously tackle anyone from your own side who is either a ) wrong or b ) rude But in short , if someone posts here a statement , and they ca n't even be sure what they mean by it , then it does n't bode well . That is what has upset a number of people ; when this has been pointed out . This is also why many pro-evolutionists are so quick to resort to ad hominem here . That 's what this thread of yours is an attempt at - and at best it is something that suggests only other people are guilty of this crime ."

"No , I for one dislike your posts because I know you intentionally write irrational posts to help support your religious cause . Just for the record montalban , basically every single legitimate scientist is `` pro-evolution `` . Creation theory is not taught in public schools , not by chance , but because ... * gasp * it 's RELIGIOUS MUMBO JUMBO . There is no evidence to support it . Creation fiction has made no progress with it 's `` faith-based `` ( lackofevidence ) with rational people . And I 'll also say that I 'd welcome ad hominem over irrational thinking any day . Ad hominem is just a lack of patience , or someone who does n't care to hide their emotion or opinion . Irrational thinking on the other hand is often only cured by death . Someone guilty of ad hominem can still hold a rational debate . The irrational .. well , why bother ? -Mach"

DISAGREE

"Mach is happy to admit he does n't read my posts/skims over them but wants to both debate and not debate them - claiming he 's got a time problem ... and asks me to post stuff he 's already replied to many pro-evolutionists are so quick to resort to ad hominem"

"No , I for one dislike your posts because I know you intentionally write irrational posts to help support your religious cause . `` And I 'll also say that I 'd welcome ad hominem over irrational thinking any day . Ad hominem is just a lack of patience , or someone who does n't care to hide their emotion or opinion . Irrational thinking on the other hand is often only cured by death . Someone guilty of ad hominem can still hold a rational debate ."

"As for who plays 'word-games ' , it seems that you missed this ... # 19 `` New peppered moth stuff `` He went on for some time trying to undermine my posts based on the use of a word which most people have a problem with . There 's also the problem with Darwin claiming a tautology was a better term than `` Natural Selection `` , this was debated for some time , even though I posted the actual words of Darwin . The thread `` Unto the Ages of Ages `` developed into a debate over whether something could be both `` more accurate ' and wrong , thanks Ursus ! WJA and SLP argued over the word 'applied ' , then 'published ' ; whether Dembski had , and then changed this to 'proved ' ( see `` Looking for intelligence `` thread ) Lurch/Ungerdunn etc over what is a 'noun ' . Multiple personalities aside , this debate over 'nouns ' lasted for months . He resorted to no better argument then 'you 're wrong ' . A great debating style ! As for debating styles .... Waxy enters a debate on Science/Math says that I 've been refuted somewhere else , by someone else , and then leaves ; does the same thing on these Creation/Evolution debates ... only adds a few insults in the process ... not wishing to debate , just to name call . Mach is happy to admit he does n't read my posts/skims over them but wants to both debate and not debate them - claiming he 's got a time problem ... and asks me to post stuff he 's already replied to Would you count as a word-game the two incidents where you 've made a claim about me being insulting , and when I 've asked you to point it out , you ca n't ? One time you were so flustered you told me you were going to warn everyone about me . You make allegations then do n't back them up . Archilochus makes allegations that I do n't understand the word 'chance ' but is un-prepared to come up with a definition , just repeats that I do n't understand it . He 'll go on repeating this , because it is a replacement for debate . All the while you guys are very shy when it comes to debating each other 's mistakes ; such as Hank describing the world as egg-shaped , etc . In short you make so many 'just-so ' statements with little recourse to evidence , in an effort to drown out anyone who differs in opinion from yourself . Hence the total unwillingness to seriously tackle anyone from your own side who is either a ) wrong or b ) rude But in short , if someone posts here a statement , and they ca n't even be sure what they mean by it , then it does n't bode well . That is what has upset a number of people ; when this has been pointed out . This is also why many pro-evolutionists are so quick to resort to ad hominem here . That 's what this thread of yours is an attempt at - and at best it is something that suggests only other people are guilty of this crime ."

"No , I for one dislike your posts because I know you intentionally write irrational posts to help support your religious cause . Just for the record montalban , basically every single legitimate scientist is `` pro-evolution `` . Creation theory is not taught in public schools , not by chance , but because ... * gasp * it 's RELIGIOUS MUMBO JUMBO . There is no evidence to support it . Creation fiction has made no progress with it 's `` faith-based `` ( lackofevidence ) with rational people . And I 'll also say that I 'd welcome ad hominem over irrational thinking any day . Ad hominem is just a lack of patience , or someone who does n't care to hide their emotion or opinion . Irrational thinking on the other hand is often only cured by death . Someone guilty of ad hominem can still hold a rational debate . The irrational .. well , why bother ? -Mach"

DISAGREE

"Natural Selection Creation/Evolution That is what has upset a number of people ; when this has been pointed out"

"No , I for one dislike your posts you intentionally write irrational posts to help support your religious cause ."

"As for who plays 'word-games ' , it seems that you missed this ... # 19 `` New peppered moth stuff `` He went on for some time trying to undermine my posts based on the use of a word which most people have a problem with . There 's also the problem with Darwin claiming a tautology was a better term than `` Natural Selection `` , this was debated for some time , even though I posted the actual words of Darwin . The thread `` Unto the Ages of Ages `` developed into a debate over whether something could be both `` more accurate ' and wrong , thanks Ursus ! WJA and SLP argued over the word 'applied ' , then 'published ' ; whether Dembski had , and then changed this to 'proved ' ( see `` Looking for intelligence `` thread ) Lurch/Ungerdunn etc over what is a 'noun ' . Multiple personalities aside , this debate over 'nouns ' lasted for months . He resorted to no better argument then 'you 're wrong ' . A great debating style ! As for debating styles .... Waxy enters a debate on Science/Math says that I 've been refuted somewhere else , by someone else , and then leaves ; does the same thing on these Creation/Evolution debates ... only adds a few insults in the process ... not wishing to debate , just to name call . Mach is happy to admit he does n't read my posts/skims over them but wants to both debate and not debate them - claiming he 's got a time problem ... and asks me to post stuff he 's already replied to Would you count as a word-game the two incidents where you 've made a claim about me being insulting , and when I 've asked you to point it out , you ca n't ? One time you were so flustered you told me you were going to warn everyone about me . You make allegations then do n't back them up . Archilochus makes allegations that I do n't understand the word 'chance ' but is un-prepared to come up with a definition , just repeats that I do n't understand it . He 'll go on repeating this , because it is a replacement for debate . All the while you guys are very shy when it comes to debating each other 's mistakes ; such as Hank describing the world as egg-shaped , etc . In short you make so many 'just-so ' statements with little recourse to evidence , in an effort to drown out anyone who differs in opinion from yourself . Hence the total unwillingness to seriously tackle anyone from your own side who is either a ) wrong or b ) rude But in short , if someone posts here a statement , and they ca n't even be sure what they mean by it , then it does n't bode well . That is what has upset a number of people ; when this has been pointed out . This is also why many pro-evolutionists are so quick to resort to ad hominem here . That 's what this thread of yours is an attempt at - and at best it is something that suggests only other people are guilty of this crime ."

"No , I for one dislike your posts because I know you intentionally write irrational posts to help support your religious cause . Just for the record montalban , basically every single legitimate scientist is `` pro-evolution `` . Creation theory is not taught in public schools , not by chance , but because ... * gasp * it 's RELIGIOUS MUMBO JUMBO . There is no evidence to support it . Creation fiction has made no progress with it 's `` faith-based `` ( lackofevidence ) with rational people . And I 'll also say that I 'd welcome ad hominem over irrational thinking any day . Ad hominem is just a lack of patience , or someone who does n't care to hide their emotion or opinion . Irrational thinking on the other hand is often only cured by death . Someone guilty of ad hominem can still hold a rational debate . The irrational .. well , why bother ? -Mach"

DISAGREE

"There 's also the problem with Darwin claiming a tautology was a better term than `` Natural Selection ``"

"No , I for one dislike your posts because I know you intentionally write irrational posts to help support your religious cause"

"As for who plays 'word-games ' , it seems that you missed this ... # 19 `` New peppered moth stuff `` He went on for some time trying to undermine my posts based on the use of a word which most people have a problem with . There 's also the problem with Darwin claiming a tautology was a better term than `` Natural Selection `` , this was debated for some time , even though I posted the actual words of Darwin . The thread `` Unto the Ages of Ages `` developed into a debate over whether something could be both `` more accurate ' and wrong , thanks Ursus ! WJA and SLP argued over the word 'applied ' , then 'published ' ; whether Dembski had , and then changed this to 'proved ' ( see `` Looking for intelligence `` thread ) Lurch/Ungerdunn etc over what is a 'noun ' . Multiple personalities aside , this debate over 'nouns ' lasted for months . He resorted to no better argument then 'you 're wrong ' . A great debating style ! As for debating styles .... Waxy enters a debate on Science/Math says that I 've been refuted somewhere else , by someone else , and then leaves ; does the same thing on these Creation/Evolution debates ... only adds a few insults in the process ... not wishing to debate , just to name call . Mach is happy to admit he does n't read my posts/skims over them but wants to both debate and not debate them - claiming he 's got a time problem ... and asks me to post stuff he 's already replied to Would you count as a word-game the two incidents where you 've made a claim about me being insulting , and when I 've asked you to point it out , you ca n't ? One time you were so flustered you told me you were going to warn everyone about me . You make allegations then do n't back them up . Archilochus makes allegations that I do n't understand the word 'chance ' but is un-prepared to come up with a definition , just repeats that I do n't understand it . He 'll go on repeating this , because it is a replacement for debate . All the while you guys are very shy when it comes to debating each other 's mistakes ; such as Hank describing the world as egg-shaped , etc . In short you make so many 'just-so ' statements with little recourse to evidence , in an effort to drown out anyone who differs in opinion from yourself . Hence the total unwillingness to seriously tackle anyone from your own side who is either a ) wrong or b ) rude But in short , if someone posts here a statement , and they ca n't even be sure what they mean by it , then it does n't bode well . That is what has upset a number of people ; when this has been pointed out . This is also why many pro-evolutionists are so quick to resort to ad hominem here . That 's what this thread of yours is an attempt at - and at best it is something that suggests only other people are guilty of this crime ."

"No , I for one dislike your posts because I know you intentionally write irrational posts to help support your religious cause . Just for the record montalban , basically every single legitimate scientist is `` pro-evolution `` . Creation theory is not taught in public schools , not by chance , but because ... * gasp * it 's RELIGIOUS MUMBO JUMBO . There is no evidence to support it . Creation fiction has made no progress with it 's `` faith-based `` ( lackofevidence ) with rational people . And I 'll also say that I 'd welcome ad hominem over irrational thinking any day . Ad hominem is just a lack of patience , or someone who does n't care to hide their emotion or opinion . Irrational thinking on the other hand is often only cured by death . Someone guilty of ad hominem can still hold a rational debate . The irrational .. well , why bother ? -Mach"

DISAGREE

"Mach is happy to admit he does n't read my posts/skims over them but wants to both debate and not debate them - claiming he 's got a time problem ... and asks me to post stuff he 's already replied to"

"No , I for one dislike your posts because I know you intentionally write irrational posts to help support your religious cause . ``"

"Southern Policy law Center ( SPLC ) SPLC continues hate smear against Oath Keepers I did not post this because of any pertinent relevance , but this statement FINALLY Clears it all up ! Now I know what a hate group is ! I finally get it !"

"Well any group or individual not spouting left-tard drivel is actually a hate group . The military is of such low intellect that they are easy to sway into hate groups . Hence the homeland insecurity warning on returning veterans ."

AGREE

"SPLC continues hate smear against Oath Keepers I did not post"

"Well any group or individual not spouting left-tard drivel is actually a hate group ."

"Southern Policy law Center ( SPLC ) SPLC continues hate smear against Oath Keepers I did not post this because of any pertinent relevance , but this statement FINALLY Clears it all up ! Now I know what a hate group is ! I finally get it !"

"Well any group or individual not spouting left-tard drivel is actually a hate group . The military is of such low intellect that they are easy to sway into hate groups . Hence the homeland insecurity warning on returning veterans ."

AGREE

"continues hate smear against Oath Keepers but this statement FINALLY Clears it all up ! Now I know what a hate group is ! I finally get it !"

"any group or individual not spouting left-tard drivel is actually a hate group ."

"Southern Policy law Center ( SPLC ) SPLC continues hate smear against Oath Keepers I did not post this because of any pertinent relevance , but this statement FINALLY Clears it all up ! Now I know what a hate group is ! I finally get it !"

"Well any group or individual not spouting left-tard drivel is actually a hate group . The military is of such low intellect that they are easy to sway into hate groups . Hence the homeland insecurity warning on returning veterans ."

AGREE

"SPLC continues hate smear against Oath Keepers"

"Well any group or individual not spouting left-tard drivel is actually a hate group ."

"Southern Policy law Center ( SPLC ) SPLC continues hate smear against Oath Keepers I did not post this because of any pertinent relevance , but this statement FINALLY Clears it all up ! Now I know what a hate group is ! I finally get it !"

"Well any group or individual not spouting left-tard drivel is actually a hate group . The military is of such low intellect that they are easy to sway into hate groups . Hence the homeland insecurity warning on returning veterans ."

AGREE

"continues hate smear against Oath Keepers"

"Well any group or individual not spouting left-tard drivel is actually a hate group"

"Southern Policy law Center ( SPLC ) SPLC continues hate smear against Oath Keepers I did not post this because of any pertinent relevance , but this statement FINALLY Clears it all up ! Now I know what a hate group is ! I finally get it !"

"Well any group or individual not spouting left-tard drivel is actually a hate group . The military is of such low intellect that they are easy to sway into hate groups . Hence the homeland insecurity warning on returning veterans ."

AGREE

"SPLC continues hate smear against Oath Keepers"

"any group or individual not spouting left-tard drivel is actually a hate group"

"Southern Policy law Center ( SPLC ) SPLC continues hate smear against Oath Keepers I did not post this because of any pertinent relevance , but this statement FINALLY Clears it all up ! Now I know what a hate group is ! I finally get it !"

"Well any group or individual not spouting left-tard drivel is actually a hate group . The military is of such low intellect that they are easy to sway into hate groups . Hence the homeland insecurity warning on returning veterans ."

AGREE

"Southern Policy law Center ( SPLC ) SPLC continues hate smear against Oath Keepers"

"Well any group or individual not spouting left-tard drivel is actually a hate group"

"Southern Policy law Center ( SPLC ) SPLC continues hate smear against Oath Keepers I did not post this because of any pertinent relevance , but this statement FINALLY Clears it all up ! Now I know what a hate group is ! I finally get it !"

"Well any group or individual not spouting left-tard drivel is actually a hate group . The military is of such low intellect that they are easy to sway into hate groups . Hence the homeland insecurity warning on returning veterans ."

AGREE

"Southern Policy law Center ( SPLC ) SPLC continues hate smear against Oath Keepers"

"Well any group or individual not spouting left-tard drivel is actually a hate group ."

"Southern Policy law Center ( SPLC ) SPLC continues hate smear against Oath Keepers I did not post this because of any pertinent relevance , but this statement FINALLY Clears it all up ! Now I know what a hate group is ! I finally get it !"

"Well any group or individual not spouting left-tard drivel is actually a hate group . The military is of such low intellect that they are easy to sway into hate groups . Hence the homeland insecurity warning on returning veterans ."

AGREE

"Now I know what a hate group is ! I finally get it !"

"Well any group or individual not spouting left-tard drivel is actually a hate group ."

"Which is why the `` medical establishment `` endorses smoking , drinking heavily and a fatty diet , with no excercise , because they believe we are predestined by our genes , right ? Why do you persist with these blatant lies ?"

"Hit that one right on the head , Symbiote . I 'd like to hear supersport 's response to this ."

AGREE

", believe we are predestined by our genes persist with these blatant lies ?"

"Hit that one right on the head , Symbiote"

"Which is why the `` medical establishment `` endorses smoking , drinking heavily and a fatty diet , with no excercise , because they believe we are predestined by our genes , right ? Why do you persist with these blatant lies ?"

"Hit that one right on the head , Symbiote . I 'd like to hear supersport 's response to this ."

AGREE

"medical establishment `` endorses smoking , drinking heavily and a fatty diet , because they believe we are predestined by our genes , right ? Why do you persist with these blatant lies ?"

"Hit that one right on the head , Symbiote . I 'd like to hear supersport 's response to this ."

"Which is why the `` medical establishment `` endorses smoking , drinking heavily and a fatty diet , with no excercise , because they believe we are predestined by our genes , right ? Why do you persist with these blatant lies ?"

"Hit that one right on the head , Symbiote . I 'd like to hear supersport 's response to this ."

AGREE

"Which is why the `` medical establishment `` endorses smoking , drinking heavily and a fatty diet , with no excercise , because they believe we are predestined by our genes , right ?"

"Hit that one right on the head , Symbiote ."

"Which is why the `` medical establishment `` endorses smoking , drinking heavily and a fatty diet , with no excercise , because they believe we are predestined by our genes , right ? Why do you persist with these blatant lies ?"

"Hit that one right on the head , Symbiote . I 'd like to hear supersport 's response to this ."

AGREE

"Which is why the `` medical establishment"

"I 'd like to hear supersport 's response to this"

"Which is why the `` medical establishment `` endorses smoking , drinking heavily and a fatty diet , with no excercise , because they believe we are predestined by our genes , right ? Why do you persist with these blatant lies ?"

"Hit that one right on the head , Symbiote . I 'd like to hear supersport 's response to this ."

AGREE

"the , right"

"the ,"

"Which is why the `` medical establishment `` endorses smoking , drinking heavily and a fatty diet , with no excercise , because they believe we are predestined by our genes , right ? Why do you persist with these blatant lies ?"

"Hit that one right on the head , Symbiote . I 'd like to hear supersport 's response to this ."

AGREE

"Why do you persist with these blatant lies ?"

"I 'd like to hear supersport 's response to this ."

"The question has been asked point blank several times . It 's been ignored everytime . This is a more public way of discussing it . If they fail to post , it more or less means they are not willing to argue it . If they post , then they open themselves up . Everytime Marc and SS come to this forum they will see this thread waiting for them ."

"You could put it in the form of a resolution , in the debate challanges forum ."

AGREE

"has been asked point blank several times . It 's been ignored everytime If they post , then they open themselves up ."

"You could put it in the form of a resolution , in the debate challanges forum ."

"The question has been asked point blank several times . It 's been ignored everytime . This is a more public way of discussing it . If they fail to post , it more or less means they are not willing to argue it . If they post , then they open themselves up . Everytime Marc and SS come to this forum they will see this thread waiting for them ."

"You could put it in the form of a resolution , in the debate challanges forum ."

AGREE

"will see this thread waiting for them"

"put it in the form of a resolution , debate challanges forum"

"The question has been asked point blank several times . It 's been ignored everytime . This is a more public way of discussing it . If they fail to post , it more or less means they are not willing to argue it . If they post , then they open themselves up . Everytime Marc and SS come to this forum they will see this thread waiting for them ."

"You could put it in the form of a resolution , in the debate challanges forum ."

AGREE

"Everytime Marc and SS come to this forum they will see this thread waiting for them ."

"You could put it in the form of a resolution , in the debate challanges forum ."

"The question has been asked point blank several times . It 's been ignored everytime . This is a more public way of discussing it . If they fail to post , it more or less means they are not willing to argue it . If they post , then they open themselves up . Everytime Marc and SS come to this forum they will see this thread waiting for them ."

"You could put it in the form of a resolution , in the debate challanges forum ."

AGREE

"Everytime Marc and SS"

"You could put it in the form of a resolution"

"The question has been asked point blank several times . It 's been ignored everytime . This is a more public way of discussing it . If they fail to post , it more or less means they are not willing to argue it . If they post , then they open themselves up . Everytime Marc and SS come to this forum they will see this thread waiting for them ."

"You could put it in the form of a resolution , in the debate challanges forum ."

AGREE

"The question has been asked point blank several times ."

"You could put it in the form of a resolution"

"The question has been asked point blank several times . It 's been ignored everytime . This is a more public way of discussing it . If they fail to post , it more or less means they are not willing to argue it . If they post , then they open themselves up . Everytime Marc and SS come to this forum they will see this thread waiting for them ."

"You could put it in the form of a resolution , in the debate challanges forum ."

AGREE

"It 's been ignored everytime ."

"You could put it in the form of a resolution , in the debate challanges forum ."

"The question has been asked point blank several times . It 's been ignored everytime . This is a more public way of discussing it . If they fail to post , it more or less means they are not willing to argue it . If they post , then they open themselves up . Everytime Marc and SS come to this forum they will see this thread waiting for them ."

"You could put it in the form of a resolution , in the debate challanges forum ."

AGREE

"The question has been asked point blank several times . It 's been ignored everytime ."

"You could put it in the form of a resolution , in the debate challanges forum ."

"The question has been asked point blank several times . It 's been ignored everytime . This is a more public way of discussing it . If they fail to post , it more or less means they are not willing to argue it . If they post , then they open themselves up . Everytime Marc and SS come to this forum they will see this thread waiting for them ."

"You could put it in the form of a resolution , in the debate challanges forum ."

AGREE

"The question has been asked point blank several times . It 's been ignored everytime ."

"put it in the form of a resolution"

"The question has been asked point blank several times . It 's been ignored everytime . This is a more public way of discussing it . If they fail to post , it more or less means they are not willing to argue it . If they post , then they open themselves up . Everytime Marc and SS come to this forum they will see this thread waiting for them ."

"You could put it in the form of a resolution , in the debate challanges forum ."

AGREE

"question has been asked point blank several times . It 's been ignored everytime ."

"You could put it in the form of a resolution , in the debate challanges forum"

"I have to watch for snares now ? I didn ’ t say it , nor does the Bible , that only males of the human race have souls ."

"Well , assuming that when the Bible says `` you `` in passages that are telling `` you `` to do something with your soul , I would hope that it also applies to women . But it never comes out and says `` women and men have souls. `` This does n't mean they do n't have them . Same thing with animals . The book is n't written for non-humans , so when it says `` you `` we can assume it does n't refer to non-humans . But the book never says `` animals do n't have souls. `` So we ca n't assume that they do n't ( according to the bible ) ."

DISAGREE

"I didn ’ t say it , nor does the Bible , that only males of the human race have souls ."

"I would hope that it also applies to women . But the book never says `` animals do n't have souls. `` So we ca n't assume that they do n't ( according to the bible ) ."

"I have to watch for snares now ? I didn ’ t say it , nor does the Bible , that only males of the human race have souls ."

"Well , assuming that when the Bible says `` you `` in passages that are telling `` you `` to do something with your soul , I would hope that it also applies to women . But it never comes out and says `` women and men have souls. `` This does n't mean they do n't have them . Same thing with animals . The book is n't written for non-humans , so when it says `` you `` we can assume it does n't refer to non-humans . But the book never says `` animals do n't have souls. `` So we ca n't assume that they do n't ( according to the bible ) ."

DISAGREE

"I ’ t say it , nor does the Bible , that only males of the human race have souls ."

"when the Bible says `` you `` in passages that are telling `` you `` to do something with your soul , I would hope that it also applies to women . But it never comes out and says `` women and men have"

"I have to watch for snares now ? I didn ’ t say it , nor does the Bible , that only males of the human race have souls ."

"Well , assuming that when the Bible says `` you `` in passages that are telling `` you `` to do something with your soul , I would hope that it also applies to women . But it never comes out and says `` women and men have souls. `` This does n't mean they do n't have them . Same thing with animals . The book is n't written for non-humans , so when it says `` you `` we can assume it does n't refer to non-humans . But the book never says `` animals do n't have souls. `` So we ca n't assume that they do n't ( according to the bible ) ."

DISAGREE

"I have to watch for snares now ? I didn ’ t say it , nor does the Bible , that only males of the human race have souls ."

"Well , assuming that when the Bible says `` you `` in passages that are telling `` you `` to do something with your soul , I would hope that it also applies to women"

"I have to watch for snares now ? I didn ’ t say it , nor does the Bible , that only males of the human race have souls ."

"Well , assuming that when the Bible says `` you `` in passages that are telling `` you `` to do something with your soul , I would hope that it also applies to women . But it never comes out and says `` women and men have souls. `` This does n't mean they do n't have them . Same thing with animals . The book is n't written for non-humans , so when it says `` you `` we can assume it does n't refer to non-humans . But the book never says `` animals do n't have souls. `` So we ca n't assume that they do n't ( according to the bible ) ."

DISAGREE

"nor does the Bible , that only males of the human race have souls"

"Well , assuming that when the Bible says `` you `` in passages that are telling `` you `` to do something with your soul"

"I have to watch for snares now ? I didn ’ t say it , nor does the Bible , that only males of the human race have souls ."

"Well , assuming that when the Bible says `` you `` in passages that are telling `` you `` to do something with your soul , I would hope that it also applies to women . But it never comes out and says `` women and men have souls. `` This does n't mean they do n't have them . Same thing with animals . The book is n't written for non-humans , so when it says `` you `` we can assume it does n't refer to non-humans . But the book never says `` animals do n't have souls. `` So we ca n't assume that they do n't ( according to the bible ) ."

DISAGREE

"only males of the human race have souls ."

"But the book never says `` animals do n't have"

"I have to watch for snares now ? I didn ’ t say it , nor does the Bible , that only males of the human race have souls ."

"Well , assuming that when the Bible says `` you `` in passages that are telling `` you `` to do something with your soul , I would hope that it also applies to women . But it never comes out and says `` women and men have souls. `` This does n't mean they do n't have them . Same thing with animals . The book is n't written for non-humans , so when it says `` you `` we can assume it does n't refer to non-humans . But the book never says `` animals do n't have souls. `` So we ca n't assume that they do n't ( according to the bible ) ."

DISAGREE

"I have to watch for snares now ?"

"The book is n't written for non-humans , so when it says `` you `` we can assume it does n't refer to non-humans"

"I have to watch for snares now ? I didn ’ t say it , nor does the Bible , that only males of the human race have souls ."

"Well , assuming that when the Bible says `` you `` in passages that are telling `` you `` to do something with your soul , I would hope that it also applies to women . But it never comes out and says `` women and men have souls. `` This does n't mean they do n't have them . Same thing with animals . The book is n't written for non-humans , so when it says `` you `` we can assume it does n't refer to non-humans . But the book never says `` animals do n't have souls. `` So we ca n't assume that they do n't ( according to the bible ) ."

DISAGREE

"only males of the human race"

" would hope that it also applies to women does n't mean they do n't have them"

"I 'm calling you out . Exactly what is the street price for an AK-47 in Miami ? Obviously you have the answer to this question , along with evidence that your answer is correct and factual , or you 're just trolling and trying to derail a serious discussion , proving that you have nothing to contribute ."

"My bet is on the latter since I have yet to see any serious debate beyond insults from it . Since it is West Palm Beach police department doing the deal Miami is out in left field . Pardon the redundancy ."

AGREE

"Exactly what is the street price for an AK-47 in Miami ?"

"My bet is on the latter since I have yet to see any serious debate beyond insults from it"

"I 'm calling you out . Exactly what is the street price for an AK-47 in Miami ? Obviously you have the answer to this question , along with evidence that your answer is correct and factual , or you 're just trolling and trying to derail a serious discussion , proving that you have nothing to contribute ."

"My bet is on the latter since I have yet to see any serious debate beyond insults from it . Since it is West Palm Beach police department doing the deal Miami is out in left field . Pardon the redundancy ."

AGREE

"I 'm calling you out . Exactly what is the street price for an AK-47 in Miami ?"

"My bet is on the latter since I have yet to see any serious debate beyond insults from it"

"I 'm calling you out . Exactly what is the street price for an AK-47 in Miami ? Obviously you have the answer to this question , along with evidence that your answer is correct and factual , or you 're just trolling and trying to derail a serious discussion , proving that you have nothing to contribute ."

"My bet is on the latter since I have yet to see any serious debate beyond insults from it . Since it is West Palm Beach police department doing the deal Miami is out in left field . Pardon the redundancy ."

AGREE

"you 're just trolling and trying to derail a serious discussion ,"

"Pardon the redundancy"

"I 'm calling you out . Exactly what is the street price for an AK-47 in Miami ? Obviously you have the answer to this question , along with evidence that your answer is correct and factual , or you 're just trolling and trying to derail a serious discussion , proving that you have nothing to contribute ."

"My bet is on the latter since I have yet to see any serious debate beyond insults from it . Since it is West Palm Beach police department doing the deal Miami is out in left field . Pardon the redundancy ."

AGREE

"trying to derail a serious discussion nothing to contribute"

"yet to see any serious debate"

"I 'm calling you out . Exactly what is the street price for an AK-47 in Miami ? Obviously you have the answer to this question , along with evidence that your answer is correct and factual , or you 're just trolling and trying to derail a serious discussion , proving that you have nothing to contribute ."

"My bet is on the latter since I have yet to see any serious debate beyond insults from it . Since it is West Palm Beach police department doing the deal Miami is out in left field . Pardon the redundancy ."

AGREE

"I 'm calling you out . Exactly what is the street price for an AK-47 in Miami ? Obviously you have the answer to this question"

"Miami is out in left field . Pardon the redundancy ."

"I 'm calling you out . Exactly what is the street price for an AK-47 in Miami ? Obviously you have the answer to this question , along with evidence that your answer is correct and factual , or you 're just trolling and trying to derail a serious discussion , proving that you have nothing to contribute ."

"My bet is on the latter since I have yet to see any serious debate beyond insults from it . Since it is West Palm Beach police department doing the deal Miami is out in left field . Pardon the redundancy ."

AGREE

"Obviously you have the answer to this question ,"

"Pardon the redundancy ."

"I 'm calling you out . Exactly what is the street price for an AK-47 in Miami ? Obviously you have the answer to this question , along with evidence that your answer is correct and factual , or you 're just trolling and trying to derail a serious discussion , proving that you have nothing to contribute ."

"My bet is on the latter since I have yet to see any serious debate beyond insults from it . Since it is West Palm Beach police department doing the deal Miami is out in left field . Pardon the redundancy ."

AGREE

"I 'm calling you you have the answer to this question , along with evidence that your answer is correct and factual , or you 're just trolling"

"My bet is on the latter"

"If I am to believe in something even if it 's scientific , I should be able to challenge the belief 's of the person who 's pushing it . If they do n't believe in what they 're selling , why should I ."

"So why should you care about their non-scientific beliefs in a debate on science ? Most people who believe in evolution do so because of science , so their non-scientific beliefs are irrelevant ."

DISAGREE

"something even if it 's scientific , why should I"

"why should you care about their non-scientific beliefs"

"If I am to believe in something even if it 's scientific , I should be able to challenge the belief 's of the person who 's pushing it . If they do n't believe in what they 're selling , why should I ."

"So why should you care about their non-scientific beliefs in a debate on science ? Most people who believe in evolution do so because of science , so their non-scientific beliefs are irrelevant ."

DISAGREE

"should be able to challenge the belief 's of the person who 's pushing it . If they do n't believe in what they 're selling , why should I"

"why should you care about their non-scientific beliefs in a debate on science ? their non-scientific beliefs are irrelevant ."

"If I am to believe in something even if it 's scientific , I should be able to challenge the belief 's of the person who 's pushing it . If they do n't believe in what they 're selling , why should I ."

"So why should you care about their non-scientific beliefs in a debate on science ? Most people who believe in evolution do so because of science , so their non-scientific beliefs are irrelevant ."

DISAGREE

"they do n't believe in what they 're selling , why should I ."

"non-scientific beliefs are irrelevant ."

"If I am to believe in something even if it 's scientific , I should be able to challenge the belief 's of the person who 's pushing it . If they do n't believe in what they 're selling , why should I ."

"So why should you care about their non-scientific beliefs in a debate on science ? Most people who believe in evolution do so because of science , so their non-scientific beliefs are irrelevant ."

DISAGREE

"If I am to believe in something even if it 's scientific"

"So why should you care about their non-scientific beliefs in a debate on science"

"If I am to believe in something even if it 's scientific , I should be able to challenge the belief 's of the person who 's pushing it . If they do n't believe in what they 're selling , why should I ."

"So why should you care about their non-scientific beliefs in a debate on science ? Most people who believe in evolution do so because of science , so their non-scientific beliefs are irrelevant ."

DISAGREE

"If I am to believe in something even if it 's scientific , I should be able to challenge the belief 's of the person who 's pushing it ."

"Most people who believe in evolution do so because of science , so their non-scientific beliefs are irrelevant ."

"If I am to believe in something even if it 's scientific , I should be able to challenge the belief 's of the person who 's pushing it . If they do n't believe in what they 're selling , why should I ."

"So why should you care about their non-scientific beliefs in a debate on science ? Most people who believe in evolution do so because of science , so their non-scientific beliefs are irrelevant ."

DISAGREE

"If I am to believe in something even if it 's scientific , I should be able to challenge the belief 's"

"So why should you care about their non-scientific beliefs"

"If I am to believe in something even if it 's scientific , I should be able to challenge the belief 's of the person who 's pushing it . If they do n't believe in what they 're selling , why should I ."

"So why should you care about their non-scientific beliefs in a debate on science ? Most people who believe in evolution do so because of science , so their non-scientific beliefs are irrelevant ."

DISAGREE

"If I am to believe in something even if it 's scientific , I should be able to challenge the belief 's of the person who 's pushing it . If they do n't believe in what they 're selling , why should I ."

"So why should you care about their non-scientific beliefs in a debate on science ?"

"If I am to believe in something even if it 's scientific , I should be able to challenge the belief 's of the person who 's pushing it . If they do n't believe in what they 're selling , why should I ."

"So why should you care about their non-scientific beliefs in a debate on science ? Most people who believe in evolution do so because of science , so their non-scientific beliefs are irrelevant ."

DISAGREE

"If I am to believe in something even if it 's scientific ,"

"So why should you care about their non-scientific beliefs in a debate on science ?"

"If I am to believe in something even if it 's scientific , I should be able to challenge the belief 's of the person who 's pushing it . If they do n't believe in what they 're selling , why should I ."

"So why should you care about their non-scientific beliefs in a debate on science ? Most people who believe in evolution do so because of science , so their non-scientific beliefs are irrelevant ."

DISAGREE

"I am to believe in something even if it 's scientific , I should be able to challenge the belief 's of the person who 's pushing it"

"So why should you care about their non-scientific beliefs in a debate on science ? Most people who believe in evolution do so because of science"

"Cybererratus , is Gary Ridgway something of a hero to you ?"

"Could you avoid your constant use of strawman ` s fallacies please ?"

DISAGREE

"is Gary Ridgway something of a hero to you ?"

"Could you avoid your constant use of strawman s fallacies please ?"

"Cybererratus , is Gary Ridgway something of a hero to you ?"

"Could you avoid your constant use of strawman ` s fallacies please ?"

DISAGREE

"something of a hero to you ?"

"Could you avoid your constant use"

"Cybererratus , is Gary Ridgway something of a hero to you ?"

"Could you avoid your constant use of strawman ` s fallacies please ?"

DISAGREE

"Cybererratus , is Gary Ridgway something of a hero to you ?"

"Could you avoid your constant use of strawman s fallacies please ?"

"Cybererratus , is Gary Ridgway something of a hero to you ?"

"Could you avoid your constant use of strawman ` s fallacies please ?"

DISAGREE

"is Gary Ridgway something of a hero to you ?"

"avoid your constant use of strawman s fallacies"

"This error becomes immediately evident if we amend Thompson 's illustration . What if the mother woke up from an accident to find herself surgically connected to her own child ? What kind of mother would willingly cut the life-support system to her two-year-old in a situation like that ? And what would we think of her if she did ?"

"Irrelevant . Whatever kind of person or mother she is , the argument would apply ."

DISAGREE

"What if the mother woke up from an accident to find herself surgically connected to her own child ? What kind of mother would willingly cut the life-support system to her two-year-old in a situation like that ?"

"Irrelevant . Whatever kind of person or mother she is , the argument would apply"

"This error becomes immediately evident if we amend Thompson 's illustration . What if the mother woke up from an accident to find herself surgically connected to her own child ? What kind of mother would willingly cut the life-support system to her two-year-old in a situation like that ? And what would we think of her if she did ?"

"Irrelevant . Whatever kind of person or mother she is , the argument would apply ."

DISAGREE

"if the mother woke up from an accident to find herself surgically connected to her own child ? What kind of mother would willingly cut the life-support system to her two-year-old"

"Irrelevant . the argument would apply ."

"This error becomes immediately evident if we amend Thompson 's illustration . What if the mother woke up from an accident to find herself surgically connected to her own child ? What kind of mother would willingly cut the life-support system to her two-year-old in a situation like that ? And what would we think of her if she did ?"

"Irrelevant . Whatever kind of person or mother she is , the argument would apply ."

DISAGREE

"What if the mother woke up from an accident to find herself surgically connected to her own child"

"the"

"This error becomes immediately evident if we amend Thompson 's illustration . What if the mother woke up from an accident to find herself surgically connected to her own child ? What kind of mother would willingly cut the life-support system to her two-year-old in a situation like that ? And what would we think of her if she did ?"

"Irrelevant . Whatever kind of person or mother she is , the argument would apply ."

DISAGREE

"This error becomes immediately evident if we amend Thompson 's illustration"

"Irrelevant"

"18th Century Pennsylvania , which had its own RKBA , passed a law which required citizens to take an oath of allegiance to the state or face being disarmed . This was to protect the state against those who might be loyal to the British Crown . So why ca n't the US take similar measures to protect itself against terrorists ?"

"Because there 's absolutely no due process in this proposal . Your name is on the list , your rights are revoked . That 's not due process . There 's no court of law , no trial , no verdict , no attorneys , no chance for the accused to defend themselves , etc . We still have n't forgotten the Homeland Security memo that said veterans and those opposed to abortion could be potential terrorists ."

DISAGREE

"RKBA , passed a law which required citizens to take an oath of allegiance to the state or face being disarmed"

"Because there 's absolutely no due process in this proposal . Your name is on the list , your rights are revoked ."

"18th Century Pennsylvania , which had its own RKBA , passed a law which required citizens to take an oath of allegiance to the state or face being disarmed . This was to protect the state against those who might be loyal to the British Crown . So why ca n't the US take similar measures to protect itself against terrorists ?"

"Because there 's absolutely no due process in this proposal . Your name is on the list , your rights are revoked . That 's not due process . There 's no court of law , no trial , no verdict , no attorneys , no chance for the accused to defend themselves , etc . We still have n't forgotten the Homeland Security memo that said veterans and those opposed to abortion could be potential terrorists ."

DISAGREE

"why ca n't the US take similar measures to protect itself against terrorists ?"

"Because there 's absolutely no due process in this proposal"

"18th Century Pennsylvania , which had its own RKBA , passed a law which required citizens to take an oath of allegiance to the state or face being disarmed . This was to protect the state against those who might be loyal to the British Crown . So why ca n't the US take similar measures to protect itself against terrorists ?"

"Because there 's absolutely no due process in this proposal . Your name is on the list , your rights are revoked . That 's not due process . There 's no court of law , no trial , no verdict , no attorneys , no chance for the accused to defend themselves , etc . We still have n't forgotten the Homeland Security memo that said veterans and those opposed to abortion could be potential terrorists ."

DISAGREE

"which required citizens to take an oath of allegiance to the state or face being disarmed"

"no attorneys , no chance for the accused to defend themselves , etc"

"18th Century Pennsylvania , which had its own RKBA , passed a law which required citizens to take an oath of allegiance to the state or face being disarmed . This was to protect the state against those who might be loyal to the British Crown . So why ca n't the US take similar measures to protect itself against terrorists ?"

"Because there 's absolutely no due process in this proposal . Your name is on the list , your rights are revoked . That 's not due process . There 's no court of law , no trial , no verdict , no attorneys , no chance for the accused to defend themselves , etc . We still have n't forgotten the Homeland Security memo that said veterans and those opposed to abortion could be potential terrorists ."

DISAGREE

"law which required citizens to take an oath of allegiance to the state or face being disarmed . why ca n't the US take similar measures to protect itself against terrorists ?"

"Because there 's absolutely no due process in this proposal"

"18th Century Pennsylvania , which had its own RKBA , passed a law which required citizens to take an oath of allegiance to the state or face being disarmed . This was to protect the state against those who might be loyal to the British Crown . So why ca n't the US take similar measures to protect itself against terrorists ?"

"Because there 's absolutely no due process in this proposal . Your name is on the list , your rights are revoked . That 's not due process . There 's no court of law , no trial , no verdict , no attorneys , no chance for the accused to defend themselves , etc . We still have n't forgotten the Homeland Security memo that said veterans and those opposed to abortion could be potential terrorists ."

DISAGREE

"passed a law allegiance to the state"

"process in this proposal not due process"

"18th Century Pennsylvania , which had its own RKBA , passed a law which required citizens to take an oath of allegiance to the state or face being disarmed . This was to protect the state against those who might be loyal to the British Crown . So why ca n't the US take similar measures to protect itself against terrorists ?"

"Because there 's absolutely no due process in this proposal . Your name is on the list , your rights are revoked . That 's not due process . There 's no court of law , no trial , no verdict , no attorneys , no chance for the accused to defend themselves , etc . We still have n't forgotten the Homeland Security memo that said veterans and those opposed to abortion could be potential terrorists ."

DISAGREE

"This was to protect the state against those who might be loyal to the British Crown ."

"Your name is on the list , your rights are revoked . That 's not due process ."

"18th Century Pennsylvania , which had its own RKBA , passed a law which required citizens to take an oath of allegiance to the state or face being disarmed . This was to protect the state against those who might be loyal to the British Crown . So why ca n't the US take similar measures to protect itself against terrorists ?"

"Because there 's absolutely no due process in this proposal . Your name is on the list , your rights are revoked . That 's not due process . There 's no court of law , no trial , no verdict , no attorneys , no chance for the accused to defend themselves , etc . We still have n't forgotten the Homeland Security memo that said veterans and those opposed to abortion could be potential terrorists ."

DISAGREE

"Pennsylvania , a citizens to take of the or . Crown . ?"

"in this . the , of to We that said and be"

"Galileo- The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with being part of any militia group , organized or otherwise , it 's not about serving any duty to the state or government ."

"Well if it has nothing to do with a militia that would mean that the preamble is merely unnecessary verbiage . So you want people to just ignore the plain text of the Second Amendment- at least the part you do n't like . The preamble lets us know that the main focus if not the sole focus of this amendment is the militia . David Konig is another historian that has found both the individual rights interpretation and the collective interpretation unsatisfactory . He says the Second Amendment protects an individual right that is exercised collectively . '' Indeed , to serve in the militia and participate in this civic duty was more than a duty : it was a civic right of a peculiarly eighteenth-century nature unlike either the 'individual ' or 'collective ' models argued for today . On neither side of the Atlantic , that is , did the debate concern itself with this right in the present-day sense of an 'individual ' or personal constitutional right ; but at the same time , its common emphasis on widespread individual arms-bearing for public service distinguishes it from today 's narrowly applied 'collective ' application to the National Guard . No individual right existed unrelated to service in a well-regulated militia ; no effective militia could serve its purpose without an armed citizenry . This type of right may appear paradoxical to us today , but it fitted 'the inner coherence of a given system of beliefs ' 4 held by people in the past , and which made sense to those familiar with the concept of an individual right exercised collectively. `` David Thomas Konig | The Second Amendment : A Missing Transatlantic Context for the Historical Meaning of `` the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms `` | Law and History Review , 22.1 | The History Cooperative"

DISAGREE

"Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with being part of any militia group , organized or otherwise , it 's not about serving any duty to the state or government ."

"The preamble lets us know that the main focus if not the sole focus of this amendment is the militia ."