RLBaty's Exercise is pointless

Not my opening statement statement: Mangani earlier refused my entreaty that we openly, honestly negotiate the logistical details as to what issues we might discuss and how such a discussion might be most appropriately produced. Mangani refused to engage me in that exercise and instead unilaterally set up this exercise. In his first round posting he proposed that round 2 would be for opening statements only, no rebuttals, and then promptly violated that directive in his round two message. I will follow Mangani's example which, as will be seen, absolves me from needing to present an "opening statement" as I note Mangani's concession of the proposition he presented for my consideration. I wrote, rather simply and clearly in my first round message, in part: - My acceptance of the invitation should not - be interpreted in any way to mean that I - endorse all that my opponent posted in his - round 1. and - As I understand from the posting of this - challenge, the proposition to be discussed - is as follows: - - RLBATY's EXERCISE IS POINTLESS - - Affirmd: Mangani - Denied: RLBaty and - If that is not the proposition to be discussed here, - then I propose that my opponent withdraw from this - discussion and consider posting a challenge that - actually reflects the proposition he wants to affirm - regarding me, my arguments and/or my claims. I may - or may not wish to discuss any such alternative - proposition(s). and - For now, I will look forward to my opponent's round - 2 "opening statement" affirming that "RLBaty's exercise - is pointless". What does Mangani do? Mangani falsely claims in his "not an opening statement statement": - (RLBaty) has accepted my Round #1 stipulations. What followed that false claim is Mangani's implicit concession of the proposition "RLBaty's exercise is pointless". I accept Mangani's concession of that proposition and request that he make it explicit should he return to this discussion. Mangani also goes to considerable length to further misrepresent me, my argument, the claims I make for my argument, and its historic place in the popular public discussion of these important issues. As I suggested in my first round message, I restate here: - I propose that my opponent withdraw from this - discussion and consider posting a challenge that - actually reflects the proposition he wants to affirm - regarding me, my arguments and/or my claims. I may - or may not wish to discuss any such alternative - proposition(s). I further propose that he attempt to formulate one, legitimate, relevant proposition that he wants to affirm regarding these matters and which he might think will interest me enough to accept for discussion. As before, I alternatively propose that Mangani come out, come clean, and openly, honestly negotiate with me regarding the details concerning the prospects for producing a more formal discussion of his problems with my argument and/or the claims I make for my argument. Here's a suggestion and, just coincidentally, it relates to that simple, fundamental issue reflected in my recent challenge to Mangani that he has thrice declined. The machinery here now tells me that Mangani is not currently accepting challenges here. SUGGESTION Mangani, in his opening statement above writes, in relevant part: - (RLBaty's) major premise is untrue... That's been where Mangani has been floundering for quite some time now, and I remain available to engage in a more formal discussion of that fundamental issue, affirming the truth of my major premise, given the basic stipulations, if Mangani and I can work out the logistical details necessary to produce that discussion.