I will be happy to define racism for you AJ, after you tell me what your position on whether the concept of races is invalid, or whether you think that races differ in appearance only.

Cheers.

Oh, I don't think you would be, LEGO...

<<<I will be happy to define racism for you AJ...>>

Otherwise you would have done it the first time I asked. Or at least said something like this...

<<...after you tell me what your position on whether the concept of races is invalid, or whether you think that races differ in appearance only.>>

No, you are merely temporising.

I’ll tell you what… I’ll answer you, whether or not I think race is a valid concept, and whether or not races differ in appearance only, if you can tell me the precise point at which you consider one population to have become two distinct races.

Now you can’t accuse me of temporising, because my answer to your initial question (on the “rightness” or “wrongness” of racism) is dependent on how you define racism; and my answer to your second question (above) is dependent on the exact point at which you consider one population to have become two distinct races.

I, however, CAN accuse you of temporising since the answer to your conditional question above bears no relevance to how you would define racism for me. It is constructed purely for the sake of extracting a careless response from me on a complex topic.

You are playing games. You are not interesting in genuine discussion. You are merely trying to trip me up so that you can shield your logic and arguments from criticism by distracting from them with a perceived problem in/with mine.

Don’t take me for a fool, LEGO. I’m not an idiot. I’m not stupid enough to presume to know precisely what constitutes a race. That’s why I need definitions from someone who is, so that I can provide them with an answer in the context of what they believe.

Unlike yourself, AJ, I am not frightened to debate fairly. I don't have to hide my position. I don't need to be evasive. I don't need to be careful about what I write because I know that my own reasoning is bankrupt. I don't have to prevaricate. I don't have to stonewall. My logic is not full of contradictions and double standards. I don't have to stand on my dignity and pretend to be outraged with my opponents replies, instead of submitting reasoned arguments which back a position I am prepared to defend. These are your vices, not mine.

You asked me a simple question, and had you ever responded to the many requests from me for you to state your position in a clear and concise way, then I would have had no problem with quickly responding. But I am totally fed up with your dishonest debating style and I do not trust you. If I have to trade answering questions for answering questions with you in order to get you to respond to what I consider to be crucial a question, I am prepared to do it.

Your question was for me to define racism and I don't see any problem with that. I am sure you are trying to trap me but I don't care. I can handle it. But since you have consistently refused to state your position, except ion the most general and deliberately vague implications (which you can then claim is not your position) then if you want my definition, you are going to have to trade for it.

You could have simply answered my never ending question in your last post and our debate could have gotten started. But no, true to form, youi continue to beat around the bush.

The ball is in your court.

Ah, LEGO. You are swerving all over the place like a madman.

Up until recently, you were asking me to simply state my position, and I did. You then refined your question to whether or not I considered all races to be equal, and I said no (with the implication that the inequality has nothing to do with superiority and inferiority). Then you change tack again by requesting my position on racism's "rightness". Given the fact that your idea of racism has varied in its broadness over time, I rightly asked you to clarify what you meant by "racism". After an attempt to dodge the question, you finally offer to answer my request for clarification on the condition that I answer another totally unrelated question. I then ask you to clarify what you consider a race to be exactly and, unsurprisingly, you have now dodged it again with your unfounded and hypocritical claims.

<<But since you have consistently refused to state your position, except ion the most general and deliberately vague implications...>>

So you at least acknowledge now that I have answered? That's a start I suppose. Though, if I sound "general and vague" at times, it's because the concept of race is "general and vague".

<<...if you want my definition, you are going to have to trade for it.>>

Your language is well-suited to your racial beliefs. You use terms like "en guarde" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275058) and speak of the throwing of gauntlets and the crossing of swords (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274522) now we have to "trade"?

This is comical. What is it with racists and medieval themes anyway? I've always wondered.

I have already explained why I require your understanding of racism. I have demonstrated, too, that you are merely temporising and poking around for a way to trip me up (or find a chink in my armour, as you would probably say), and even now, you continue to do it.

Sorry, but the ball is still in your court as my thoughts on racism's "rightness" depend entirely on what you mean by "racism". It's a simple question, but you won't answer it.

Oh AJ. You have no idea how pleased I am that you still will not state a position. I knew you would keep stalling. I always get a kick out of being able to divine my opponents intentions. The only thing I am sorry for, is that I did not state in my last post that I know you are going to keep prevaricating. If anybody is reading our exchanges, that would have shown our readers how much I have you figured out.

I am asking you again to state your position on this debate. I know you are against racism, the question is why? Do you think that races do not exist, except in people's imaginations? Or, do you think that it is because races are equal in every way except physical appearances? Or is it something else? Whatever, what is your position? Answer the question.

No more vague implications. No more grandstanding where you act outraged and claim that you have already answered it adequately. No more posting links to some vague quote from you in our last "debate". Show our readers that you can take a position that you are prepared to defend. Because I am too experienced a debater to fall for the "always imply, but when challenged deny" school of dishonest debating. Or the "Unless you can prove me wrong, then it proves I am right" school of dishonest debating. Or the "I can attack your logic, but you can't attack mine because I won't tell you what it is" school of dishonest debating. I am sure your sneaky tactics have worked a treat on less experienced debaters in the past, and you are so disappointed that you have met somebody who knows what you are doing, but I have seen these tactics before and they won't work on me.

However, this time I will predict for our readers that you will play games and prevaricate. You have to. The last thing you want to is to have your own anti racist position examined and the holy orthodoxy tested by an informed opponent.

And you have no idea how pleased I am that will still not explain what you mean by "racism", LEGO.

<<You have no idea how pleased I am that you still will not state a position.>>

You see, this doesn't add up because, if you really wanted to prove a point to your readers, then you would simply explain your understanding of what constitutes "racism" and remove any doubt about what you allege I am doing, and all while disproving my accusations about what I think you are doing.

It would be killing two birds with one stone.

However, I have provided a legitimate reason for holding off on giving you an answer. You, on the other hand, have not. All you've done is lie about me being evasive; completely unable to point to a single instance of this alleged evasiveness.

You only continue to prove my point. You have no set idea of what you mean by "racism". You keep it flexible in order to broaden your options for red herrings. The same goes for your refusal to clarify what you mean by "equal".

But I've proven my point now.

<<I knew you would keep stalling.>>

So now it's time to move onto the next step and further expose the lie that is your claim regarding my alleged evasiveness, by showing how bogus the apparent ease with which you were apparently able to predict a stalling on my behalf was, and use a dictionary definition to answer your question. Yes, yes, I could have done it before, but I had a point to prove.

<<If anybody is reading our exchanges, that would have shown our readers how much I have you figured out.>>

You? Not so much.

According to the Oxford dictionary, racism is:

1. The belief that each race or ethnic group possesses specific characteristics, abilities, or qualities that distinguish it as inferior or superior to another such group;
2. Discrimination against or antagonism towards other races or ethnic groups based on such beliefs.

Continued…