I judged you to be another honest, young, and befuddled liberal who's opinions were the result of peer pressure conditioning, not the result of thoughtful analysis, and that you could be swayed by the force of reasoned argument. Your initial posts were reasonable and well presented, and that confirmed my judgement that you were debating fairly in good faith. Your premise about selective breeding, as opposed to natural selection, was quite good, I had not heard that one before. But high school level genetics was all it took for me to understand that it was crap. It only took me an hour on the web to counter that one. And you can bet that I will be better prepared if some liberal tosses that one at me in future.

At that point you reached what I call "the sneery one liner stage" where the purpose is not to engage in debate, it is to stifle debate. The red flags started rising that I had a genuine lefty Shiite ideologue as an opponent, but I still continued debating as if you were an honest young liberal who was getting desperate because they had run out of ideas. But when you accused me of lying, I had had enough. I demanded that you must clearly state your position, and when you claimed you did not need one, I knew that I was dealing with a person who was not prepared to debate in good faith.

If you need to stoop to such tactics to keep yourself in a debate, then could I advise you that you may as well chuck in your criminology course, because you do not have what it takes to be a scientist. We seem to be living in an age where ideologues are using the cover of being scientists or academics to push their stupid social theories that are detrimental to the continued existence of their own civilisation. Fortunately, we mostly still have free speech with which to counter this absurd ideology, although you ideologues are still trying to fix that little inconvenience up

Sigh... More ad hominem attacks. At least I would point to exactly why I would make the accusations that I made, while addressing the issue at the same time. You, on the other hand, will fill an entire response with claims that can be shown to be false simply by scrolling up. You just throw mud and hope it sticks. Your try to intimidate your opponents with your aggressive tone and talk of locking horns, crossing swords, pinning them in corners and throwing down gauntlets.

You assure me that past debates have gone better for you, yet as long ago as seven-and-a-half years ago even Graham Young had even explained to you why your opponents leave:

"...the reason people give up on arguing with you is not because you are winning, but because you don't obey the rules of logic. It just ends up being a waste of time." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4490#44500)

For someone who insists that others do their homework before "crossing swords" with you, and no longer has the excuse of requiring my position for a productive debate, you've gone awful quite on the evidence front.

You can't use my witty one-liners as an excuse either - let alone provide examples of them - because you know that they adequately addressed what they were responding to. In fact, they were productive on three levels because they also required minimal reading and highlighted the absurdity of what they were responding to as well.

Mr Phillips. I am a working class man who just got utterly fed up of the attacks upon my race, my people, my country, and my culture, by a bunch of educated idiots who think that they are intellectually and morally superior to everyone else. I lived through a time when these educated idiots claimed that the USSR and Red China were "workers paradises" instead of the giant prison camps they were. The question which obsessed me was, how could educated and supposedly intelligent people support causes which were self evidently crazy?

I got onto these debate sites 10 years ago so, that I could grab a few of these people by the shirtfronts to see how smart they really were. My discovery was, that they are not all that bright at all. Racism and egalitarianism are subjects close to my heart. Since the egalitarians always blame my race for the dysfunctions of every race, people like yourself are fair game to me.

Now, I have found that I can win any debate with my egalitarian opponents because the idea of the races being equal in almost very way, is potty. The only way that you and the other devious, sly bugger could get even a look in, is to engage in deception from the start. Pretending that your position is beyond question and that it must not be examined or criticised, while claiming that your opponents opposing position is the only one that can be examined and criticised, is not debating.

Of course, it was imperative of you to conceal the fact that you had no intention of debating fairly and arguing the opposite side of the motion. My presumption is, that you have tried this trick before on some unsuspecting and trusting opponent, and it probably worked a treat. But it did not work on me for long because I have been a victim of it before. But if you consider yourself an intelligent person with high ideals, how do you reconcile your dishonest need to use subterfuge against an opponent who is debating fairly with you?

Keep digging, LEGO.

<<Now, I have found that I can win any debate with my egalitarian opponents because the idea of the races being equal in almost very way, is potty.>>

Egalitarianism is not the belief that all races are equal in almost every way, but the belief that they should be respected and treated as such. Where some deviate from this is their own prerogative.

<<…Pretending that your position is beyond question and that it must not be examined or criticised, while claiming that your opponents opposing position is the only one that can be examined and criticised, is not debating.>>

No, it certainly isn’t. I, however, simply pointed out the flaw in your excuse that you need my position to argue yours.

With such bare-faced untruths as these, you have no right to accuse me of dishonesty or a lack of sincerity.

<<…how do you reconcile your dishonest need to use subterfuge against an opponent who is debating fairly with you?>>

The fact that neither of your claims here are true is a big help.

You have not, and cannot, support your claims of my alleged lack of serenity or dishonesty the way I demonstrate yours, and I will never tire of pointing that out.

What's going down here AJ? I presumed that we are just talking together, here but you keep talking like you have an audience. But we are so far down the calendar that we are about to fall off the end, so who is the audience AJ?

Let's see. There I was on this topic, being my usual racist and obnoxious self, and suddenly, some character called "AJ Phillips", who I have never heard of before, just pops out of nowhere and challenges me to meet him outside the saloon at high noon.

That's OK. But this "AJ Phillips" has access to things I said years ago, and he knows the site so well he even knows little tricks about how to use a combination of keys as a rudimentary quote function. One other aspect of AJ Phillips is very strange. This site has only allowed 2 posts per topic in 24 hours, but this does not apply to him. He gets four 350 words posts away per 24 hours but I can't complain, because somehow that privilege gets bestowed upon me too.

Here's what I think AJ, you got a friend upstairs. The bloke who runs this site brought in a headkicker to sort me out and you and he are friends. He has chucked me off a couple of times for being a racist, but he likes my lively contributions, so he doesn't want me chucked off again, just given a verbal kicking. And he figured you were the man for the job.

Unfortunately for you, I have been around the block. You knew a tactic which you thought you would try out on me and it worked for a while, because I was trusting enough to think you were not a cheat. You would attack my racist position that all races were not equal, by never acknowledging the logical conclusion that they therefore must be equal. Well, not only have I seen that strategy before with another cheat, I even named it. I call it the "always imply, but when challenged deny" school of debate cheating.

What was that you were saying about moral outrage, LEGO?

<<With one exception, every one of them had the intellectual honesty to understand that we were debating two sides of a question here.>>

Nice try, but one person arguing that their beliefs are right, while the other points out why they're not, is still "two sides of a question".

<<The exception, was a particularly sly and experienced debater who presented his position in exactly the same way that you did. He really had me going for quite a long time, and he bogged me down in detail in which [he] laboured every point...>>

Sounds like this fictional person was very knowledgeable and thorough. Let me guess... you couldn't make the debate about him and so you threw a tantrum and accused him of cheating?

<<...until I figured out what he was doing. I was shocked that an educated person would misrepresent his position by claiming he did not need one...>>

The horror!

That's not a misrepresentation, though.

<<...which is self evidently dishonest in a debate.>>

Why? Since when has the position of another been relevant to defending your position? You keep sidestepping this.

Trying to make the debate about your opponent? Now that's dishonest.

Either way, if someone agrees with the rebuttals they provide, then why is it not enough to assume that that's their position?

I'll tell you why. It's because you just want an emotionally and subjectively derived opinion to attack and it bugs you when someone argues from reliably derived data. It's not enough for your opponent to believe that all "races" are deserving of equal treatment either. You need them to believe that they are all virtually identical and when you don't get that, you become a petulant bully and make disgusting and offensive accusations.

<<Your premise about selective breeding, as opposed to natural selection, was quite good, I had not heard that one before. But high school level genetics was all it took for me to understand that it was crap. It only took me an hour on the web to counter that one.>>

Continued...