Conversion Therapy

I naturally assume my Opponent didn't actually read my argument. And to say the least, he may have almost skimmed it, without actually taking the time or effort to recognize the Ideas being presented. In effect, I believe that he is not actually debating with me any more at all. But in fact fulfilled the prerequisites for being a candidate of Conversion therapy to my specifications: for not submitting to their "obligations as a participant of conversation or as members of society when their impudence is addressed TO use the application(s*) of logic and acknowledgment." The Impudence being addressed, is in Fact their lack of Regard or Consideration for the consequences, agents and condition of all things including Human Behaviour. The "Odd Rhetoric", was not referenced, to indicate where my comments lead to loose ends or poor presentation, or were incomprehensible. He states that I seem to drone on, Indicating, being the cause of my natural assumption that He didn't not read my Argument and therefor has forfeited the debate by default. Unless he can otherwise prove that he read my arguments In Favor of Using Conversion Therapy via the specific criteria I used through* Example. I did not use hypotheticals. I was expressing when Conversion Therapy could have permitted physical abuse had an ARROGNAT or INSOLENT or IMPUDENT patient decided to reject the True, Significant and Imperative information being proposed for consideration on account of the patient's Consequential Behaviours, Attitudes and Actions. I feel I am not obligated to stipulate over the whereabouts of my debate contribution, as I was unable to detect the profanity after multiple Microsoft word re-reads and application of Word-Finder. This "Unrealistic Situation" that My opponent suggest I am presenting, IS clearly NOT about the subject of C.T. but is in fact the LGBT. WHILE, that situation I presented was NOT Unrealistic in the least. Not 1 iota of the things I theoretically presented to the client - in the act of associating Pain with Homosexuality - was fallible to any degree. The success and validity of C.T. was argued for abundantly through: A provision, of Denying the patient the audacity to disregard what was being expressed to 'him'; and enforcing the application of discipline when the patient refused to pay attention ~ Because, what was being said was of consequence, that was NOT from a bigoted stand point, While the Patient was Clearly Proven to be. Cheers Nuckas. I have no right to follow up from here. But. As we can see: My Opponent did not address CT from a realistic view point, but was instead a narcissistic one ; while in fact diverting your attention from what CT actually is, to what psychiatric practitioners manifested in allusion to CT which can easily be said to be inhumane. He asserted my argument was profane, which is not an accurate summary; and he missed what my argument was, and without making verifications in 'Comments' still had the audacity to refute my arguments. Which breaks an essential rule of Debate: **No one can make reference to, theoretical or otherwise, A subject which they cannot comprehend.** Referencing the reference of such a subject is NOT, an application of that subject itself. The one incapable of comprehending a Subject cannot under any circumstance make reference to IT, as IT is, as IT is being stipulated nor otherwise. ]] An example, for example of breaking this rule, IS Making a reference to "God", While proposing that "God is responsible for the action of men, as apposed to men being 100% responsible for their own actions.": That merely is not a reference to God. "GOD, IS Holistically Everything as a grand sum - Sin being will-full absence of consideration - in a Holistic condition to which Man is 100% responsible for his own actions." - Any reference to God in any other condition, Is NOT in any degree the least of a reference to the Character of God. Good day, sir.