Gay bars: Discriminatory?

[Condunum]

It's so incredibly shocking that someone can show up out of the blue and call you out on your bullshit, huh? I guess that's why you have a problem doing what I'm asking, because you're just so shocked that someone would actually tell you to prove yourself. It's frightening, I know, but that's what you have to do in a debate.

[Gravlen]

...out of five sources presented, all of which corroborated the information presented.

They were clearly left-leaning and biased towards the gay agenda.

The Danish Security and Intelligence Service and DKR are left-leaning and biased... how?

[Premislyd]

It's so incredibly shocking that someone can show up out of the blue and call you out on your bullshit, huh? I guess that's why you have a problem doing what I'm asking, because you're just so shocked that someone would actually tell you to prove yourself. It's frightening, I know, but that's what you have to do in a debate.

It would be incredibly shocking if it was true, but all you've done is just add ad homs instead of actually trying to debunk my points.

Thank you for contributing nothing to the thread, the door is that way.

[Condunum]

Look, statements like this make you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't surprise me, but that's not the point.

The simple fact that the sources showed that a large segment of the population still thinks being gay is not okay is an issue which should be dealt with, not ignored because you're pissed off that the majority of the population doesn't think this. A significant minority can still be a major problem.

The sources really didn't point anything except political correct nonsense in order to appease the gay community.

No, I'm saying you have to back up your claim, which you haven't done. All you've done is give me rhetoric about how easy it is to demolish a biased source. So do it. Show me what's wrong with the sources.

If you're saying it's not biased, then show me.

No, you claimed it was biased. I cannot prove a negative claim, nor do I have to do anything but remove your claims. Since you have none, I don't even have to do that. What you're saying has no basis to go on, ergo, you have no claim.

[Condunum]

It's so incredibly shocking that someone can show up out of the blue and call you out on your bullshit, huh? I guess that's why you have a problem doing what I'm asking, because you're just so shocked that someone would actually tell you to prove yourself. It's frightening, I know, but that's what you have to do in a debate.

It would be incredibly shocking if it was true, but all you've done is just add ad homs instead of actually trying to debunk my points.

Thank you for contributing nothing to the thread, the door is that way.

What points? Your point is "The source is biased."

My response is "Show me how."

and you continue to refuse to do this.

[Premislyd]

They were clearly left-leaning and biased towards the gay agenda.

The Danish Security and Intelligence Service and DKR are left-leaning and biased... how?

Because Denmark is a socialist hellhole, anybody that's taken Pol.Sci. 101 would know that it's a biased source.

[The Steel Magnolia]

The Danish Security and Intelligence Service and DKR are left-leaning and biased... how?

Because Denmark is a socialist hellhole, anybody that's taken Pol.Sci. 101 would know that it's a biased source.

Denmark is neither socialist nor a hellhole, and you've never taken a political science class in your life.

[Premislyd]

It would be incredibly shocking if it was true, but all you've done is just add ad homs instead of actually trying to debunk my points.

Thank you for contributing nothing to the thread, the door is that way.

What points? Your point is "The source is biased."

My response is "Show me how."

and you continue to refuse to do this.

If you read the thread at all, you will see that I've done this multiple times throughout the thread.

[Condunum]

The Danish Security and Intelligence Service and DKR are left-leaning and biased... how?

Because Denmark is a socialist hellhole, anybody that's taken Pol.Sci. 101 would know that it's a biased source.

Almost every source on the entire internet is biased. Bias is not an inherent bad. You have to show how it's bias skews the evidence. So do that.

[The Steel Magnolia]

What points? Your point is "The source is biased."

My response is "Show me how."

and you continue to refuse to do this.

If you read the thread at all, you will see that I've done this multiple times throughout the thread.

why don't you quote where and when.

[Condunum]

What points? Your point is "The source is biased."

My response is "Show me how."

and you continue to refuse to do this.

If you read the thread at all, you will see that I've done this multiple times throughout the thread.

So you can't prove it? Good to know. I'm not going on a rat chase just to see something you probably think is a refutation. Show me or you've no basis.

[Premislyd]

Because Denmark is a socialist hellhole, anybody that's taken Pol.Sci. 101 would know that it's a biased source.

Almost every source on the entire internet is biased. Bias is not an inherent bad. You have to show how it's bias skews the evidence. So do that.

Bias is inherently bad.

Again, thank you for contributing nothing to the conversation but rather just keep repeating: "I'm incapable of doing something myself, so you do it for me"

[Premislyd]

If you read the thread at all, you will see that I've done this multiple times throughout the thread.

So you can't prove it? Good to know. I'm not going on a rat chase just to see something you probably think is a refutation. Show me or you've no basis.

I'm not going back through the thread to do something you're too lazy to do yourself.

[Condunum]

Almost every source on the entire internet is biased. Bias is not an inherent bad. You have to show how it's bias skews the evidence. So do that.

Bias is inherently bad.

No, it's not. Nothing is inherently bad or good. Bias is not even externally bad until it becomes an impediment. Which it is not, unless you can prove it is.

Again, thank you for contributing nothing to the conversation but rather just keep repeating: "I'm incapable of doing something myself, so you do it for me"

Projection? Nice. I don't think the source is wrong. So prove it's wrong or you have no basis. No basis, no argument. No argument, nothing to go on.

[Gravlen]

The Danish Security and Intelligence Service and DKR are left-leaning and biased... how?

Because Denmark is a socialist hellhole, anybody that's taken Pol.Sci. 101 would know that it's a biased source.

So you have nothing. Thank you, and goodbye.

If it's biased, point out the bias. What you say is biased doesn't matter. If you can't prove it, your contribution is null.

So, prove them wrong.

Except Prem is actually contributing to this thread.

Incorrect.

[Condunum]

So you can't prove it? Good to know. I'm not going on a rat chase just to see something you probably think is a refutation. Show me or you've no basis.

I'm not going back through the thread to do something you're too lazy to do yourself.

So you concede the point then? Good.

[Premislyd]

I'm not going back through the thread to do something you're too lazy to do yourself.

So you concede the point then? Good.

Can you point out where I said?

Because Denmark is a socialist hellhole, anybody that's taken Pol.Sci. 101 would know that it's a biased source.

So you have nothing. Thank you, and goodbye.

So you have nothing to refute my claim.

---

And here I thought that General was suppose to be a debate forum.

[Condunum]

So you concede the point then? Good.

Can you point out where I said?

You don't need to. Refusal to back one's claim is an automatic concession by any measurement of debate. You may still believe it, but you've conceded.

[Condunum]

So you have nothing. Thank you, and goodbye.

So you have nothing to refute my claim.

---

And here I thought that General was suppose to be a debate forum.

You made the claim. You have to prove it. The burden of proof is on you.

[Premislyd]

Can you point out where I said?

You don't need to. Refusal to back one's claim is an automatic concession by any measurement of debate. You may still believe it, but you've conceded.

Can you please point out to say where I refused to back "my" claim?

So you have nothing to refute my claim.

---

And here I thought that General was suppose to be a debate forum.

You made the claim. You have to prove it. The burden of proof is on you.

I didn't make any sort of claim, I was just pointing out the obvious.

[Condunum]

You don't need to. Refusal to back one's claim is an automatic concession by any measurement of debate. You may still believe it, but you've conceded.

Can you please point out to say where I refused to back "my" claim?

Deflection:

Prove it. Prove somehow that they had a malicious agenda, and there was not a shred of factual evidence.

Obviously you haven't read them, or else you wouldn't be saying this.

You made the claim. You have to prove it. The burden of proof is on you.

I didn't make any sort of claim, I was just pointing out the obvious.

You made a claim by doing what you thought was pointing out the obvious. You have yet to back this claim.

[Gravlen]

So you have nothing. Thank you, and goodbye.

So you have nothing to refute my claim.

---

And here I thought that General was suppose to be a debate forum.

Liar.

[Premislyd]

Can you please point out to say where I refused to back "my" claim?

Deflection:

Obviously you haven't read them, or else you wouldn't be saying this.

I didn't make any sort of claim, I was just pointing out the obvious.

You made a claim by doing
what you thought was pointing out the obvious. You have yet to back this claim.

It's really not my problem that you can't do things for yourself.

Really at this point, you're just add ad homs to the discussion instead of trying to debunk my claim. Therefore, by your "logic," you concede.

[Condunum]

Here's rhetoric instead of actually doing what you're supposed to in a debate. Sucks when your posts bite you in the ass, huh?

Indeed you did. Instead, he pendantically pointed out "lolnumbers" in lieu of an actual response.

It's really not my fault that he picked the two most biased sources out there.

Does that really matter? If you cannot debate the faults of a biased source, or the information therein, you have no place in debate. It's that simple. If it's biased or faulty, it should be easy for you.

It really does matter. It's really not that hard picking out an unbiased source.

[Premislyd]

So you have nothing to refute my claim.

---

And here I thought that General was suppose to be a debate forum.

Liar.

So we've resorted to petty name calling instead of actually trying to refute my claim. How cute.