Bryan Mullins: Disability isn't even a real thing as shown in The Roast Game Skeptic's video

OK, you said that ALS is a disease, but just because I attacked your argument, doesn't make it approval for you. You committed a logical fallacy of instant approval because someone like me attacks your argument." No, that's not what I am doing. I explained to you the difference between disability and disease, a disease can be the cause of a disability, among other things. I also have never heard of this fallacy before, have searched it, and could not find anything on it. I'd like a link for that please. " Does stubbing your toe cause an effect." yes "The only effect of a disease is pain, not disability" When a disease renders you paralyzed and unable to walk, I'd have to disagree. "No, it only defines pain, not disability. You only keep asserting that, which still doesn't prove anything. Let me define pain for you. Pain: "physical suffering or distress, as due to injury, illness, etc."" I agree with you that pain is not disability, yet a disease like ALS causes your voluntary muscles to literally not work, they could be experiencing pain as well, but that doesn't negate the fact that the muscles cease to function. "Just because you are hurting or sick, doesn't necessarily make you disabled. Another assertion you made." I've never actually had said that. I said that if you are limited in your movement, senses, and activities, then you are disabled. I used to have cancer, and I never used to consider myself disabled. It had never limited me in any way shape or form, I was able to do what I wanted to do. "3. "Yes, it has been done. I made sure that my argument made sense, in order to verify it to be true." Has it?" Yes, of course. It isn't unsound is it?" There are two parts two an argument, validity, and soundness. Your argument is valid, however, I object to the premise of your argument. "I didn't say that they did, I only said Skeptics used skepticism as a tactic to debunk things purporting to be "facts" or "true" though it is more than just using skepticism to debunk things like I stated earlier. You are clearly not a skeptic, SirDave." "I am disproving disability by being skeptical and using my skepticism to debunk "disability." Skepticism isn't used to debunk anything. Skepticism is what starts the process of debunking. If you are a skeptic of flat earth, you don't accept the claim, because you are skeptical you find a way to falsify it. "though it is more than just using skepticism to debunk things like I stated earlier" I hadn't seen you say that. "If the word "disability" has no legitimate meaning, it is illegitimate and it has been debunked." That must be what your more than skepticism, a conclusion from an argument, that says " If you are able to do anything without the help of others, you are not disabled." Well, Hawking can move his eye, so he must not be disabled according to you, he can't walk or talk, but he can move his eye, and that fits "anything. "Yes they do have a choice, as I said before, they refuse. I'm not just picking out keywords to give me points, I'm just arguing your point. Again, you committed another logical fallacy (the same one) again. Just because someone attacks your argument, doesn't make it approval for you. It's not that I don't think they're not "disabled" it's that they're not disabled. That is an irrelevant argument to make" They literally can't without the help of others, at least he can move his eye. The reason I addressed this is your argument is based on the ability to choose, you assume they have the ability to choose. It's confined to a wheelchair, or a bed, or a regular. They do have a choice, so I guess they're not disabled. (Sarcasm) "Arguing my point is not the same as just asserting my point. If I was asserting my point I would just clearly say this. "Disability isn't a thing and you know it" or "It is not a thing. Stop arguing a fact." I am clearly not asserting, just another irrelevant argument you have made." Assertions are arguments made without demonstrable evidence, I have yet to see a demonstration of someone like Hawking being able to choose to get out of a wheelchair unless you count the ones specified above. It's still an assertion. "You can question it all you want, but you must actually demonstrate it to be true or in this case false, which has not been done." You are clearly a believer in all these things you stated, though you deny it. Being skeptical doesn't always mean, you disagree or disbelieve in anything, another assertion you made, in this quote you meant that you believed in these things because you said you are a skeptic of religion, flat earth, and supernatural beings. Then word "Skeptic" and "Skepticism" are camouflage words. They don't always mean the same all the time." So when I said, "You can question it all you want, but you must actually demonstrate it to be true or in this case false, which has not been done." That was directly to you, not to the claims of religion or flat earth etc. "Being skeptical doesn't always mean, you disagree or disbelieve in anything another assertion you made," Actually, you said that "Skeptic: "a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual" "Again, it is only pain, not disability" This is funny to me you quote the article, but it only seems like you read the first paragraph, otherwise you would have seen this: "and individuals lose their strength and the ability to speak, eat, move, and even breathe." That is literally the definition of how we define disability. " does not know or clarify what Skepticism is." I didn't because you defined skeptic. In conclusion, disability is real in relativity to how we define it. If disability was not a real thing, individuals who are paralyzed from the waist down would only be choosing to be in a wheelchair, despite having evidence that they cannot physically move there legs. My opponents argument is based on that if we can do anything, we are not disabled, and that anything we classify as a disability is only pain despite the evidence. Individuals with deafness must be choosing not to hear. Individuals with blindness must be choosing not to see. The argument is based on one type of disability without addressing what the word actually means and how we use it. https://www.ninds.nih.gov... http://www.scientificamerican.com... I'm not going tell you who to vote for, it's up to you to decide whose arguments were more valid and sound.