Speech is our most important freedom.

"Now we see my opponent's agenda in a code phrase. Besides "where are all those protesters after the child is born," let's look at the more serioous hidden agenda problem. This debate is over and the new one is: Using an example from another debate: Now I have made the point I think that my opponent used this http://www.finitesite.com...... to produce this http://www.debate.org...... without telling anybody. so What? One thing is lacking here, and it is a good point and one made frequently in debating: Who cares? So what? What value do you attach to pursuing this matter? Why are you bringing this up anyway? What is your agenda? Put your cards on the table. Any court of law is going to want to know where you are going with this, and it is important to know why. It is not because we don't want to waste the court's valuable time. It is because the withholding of that information is not fair to your opponent. What you are doing is concealing an agenda. If your opponent does not know what you intend to prove down the road with this conclusion, in debating terms it is like posting an incomplete opening argument that does not attach any value to itself. It cannot be countered with opposing values because there are none to oppose. In layman's terms, so what? Taking a look at that Michael Coren buffoon we can easily see so what. He's the buffoon on the right. The guy on the left is the one that is going to debate me. Now if I don't know about this clip I won't see the buffoon on the right who lays it all out for me. Debating him would be a dream come true. He is translating the smooth academic language Ross McKitrick is speaking but does not practice into the hysterical stuff that Joe Sixpack will hear on talk hysteriadio. Where does anyone say anything about what Mann says about Man's (or Mann's for that matter) contribution to global warming? That would be critical if you are arguing, as they are, that the value is "look at all the money we are spending on global warming because of bad science." Well we are not spending money to address natural global warming. More importantly the buffoon on the right, Michael Coren, whom I have never heard of and now I see why, exposed the whole agenda of piecemeal attack. It is like the old Cisco Kid radio show where one bad guy starts confessing and the other bad guy says, "Shut up you fool!" He forgot to explain that this whole agenda of piecemeal attack is bad science. Michael Coren, who we may think of as a reincarnation of Wally George, thinks it is OK and spills the beans. Disregarding for the moment the remarkable similarity between the title of the YouTube post and my opponent's premise, and that it's pretty clear he was pretty dishonest but that's not the worst of it. If all I have is the arguments of the guy on the left, the only thing I have to go on is a valueless argument. Serious debaters have long since left all three of these buffoons, and online debating itself, in the dirt with the simple requirement that you need to attach some value to your argument. Now we see why. Because it tells where you are going with this argument." ============================================================================ I am very confused. Did you post an argument that you meant for another debate? Because this seems completely off topic. This does not address my arguments at all. I will try to respond for it, but I hope you can clarify what you are talking about in the next round. As far as I can tell, I am being accused of promoting a hidden agenda. But my opponent has really provided what that agenda is, or how he knows I am promoting it. Apparently I have not attached value or importance to my arguments, but this is clearly false, as I explained the impacts in my last speech. So, my points have not been refuted, and my opponent has just gone off on wild tangent. Right now, all of my points still stand, and he has not refuted of my arguments against his.