James has chose not to argue. This is why I shortened my response in the debate. When a person chooses to avoid the main point of your argument, they have chosen not to argue.
His technique is quite simple: It's called the Strawman. [1] Distort what I said, then knock it down. My main argument is misunderstood by him or he has no idea how to defeat it, so he stoops to Strawmaning it through the debate.
Another technique he has used is the Can of Worms technique. [2] Instead of directly responding to my argument, he opens up a can of arguments that are relevant to the issue, but irrelevant to the main point being argued. The irrational expectation is that I must address all of these side points that are not relevant to the main point or I loose the argument. He may convince those with a short attention span, but not those of a distinguished and articulate intellect who will not become confused as to what the main point is.
One of his most common falsifications of my position is his continual false assertion (he is not quoting me, he is making this up, it's the first step of Strawman Argument creation, falsify the opponents position). He falsely claims I stated this nonsense:
I never said this. I said the opposite. I've continually said that harm can occur while sex occurs. I do not contend that sex causes harm, just as well as drinking Coke doesn't cause harm, but harm can occur while drinking a Coke if the Coke goes down the wrong pipe. This doesn't mean Coca~Cola causes harm. Choking does harm, because it is not necessary for Coke to be present for choking to harm, it could be a bottle of Jones Blue Bubble Gum soda. I pointed this principle out several times in his argument that fails to separate the fact that sex doesn't cause harm and but the actions of rape do.
His continual distortions provides strong evidence he can't take my argument head on. Strawman is an act of desperation. I suggest everyone read what a Strawman argument is, read my argument, then watch how James several times distorts my claims, instead of quoting me. You will find Strawman throughout all of his argument. You will find not one occurrence of Strawman in my argumentation. I have not a need for it.
James thinks winning the argument consists on focusing on cases where abuse does occur, but ignores my agreement that abuse does occur. He doesn't want you to focus on the fact I agree with that. He wants you to ignore that the onus is on him to show abuse occurs in all cases. In order for him to have won the debate, he would need to empirically prove harm occurs in all cases.
In order for him to prove this, he would have needed to show physiological, emotional, and psychological states occurring during the act of sex dynamically form what is called mental illness when when no manipulation, threat, violence, iatrogenic harm is present.
He needed to start from the physiological and emotional level. He needed to show us what the physical body was doing and the chemicals that were occurring (I provided this). He needed to show how the empirical states of emotion produced from sex then go onto create a mental illness. He did not provide this process and neither has the studies he has cited, which makes his argument only subjective. It fails to meet the empirical criteria for science. He has not won the debate on scientific grounds.
In summary his argument is not really an argument:
- He Strawmanned himself through the debate.
- He chose not to argue my actual content, only his Strawman distortions.
- Most of all, he failed to provide the process that proves abuse occurs in all cases.
I on the other hand have based all of my argument on empirical grounds. Surely, with more time, I could expand the number of citations that form this empirical basis. I have shown how emotions can be empirically planted. I have distinguished sexual activity and from harmful activity with empirical evidence at the fundamental physiological, emotional, and psychological level. There is no reason to believe any kind of sex in an of itself causes harm based upon this evidence.
James has not proven sex can cause harm. James instead adds abuse along with sex, then claims sex causes harm. Two different birds altogether.
His technique is quite simple: It's called the Strawman. [1] Distort what I said, then knock it down. My main argument is misunderstood by him or he has no idea how to defeat it, so he stoops to Strawmaning it through the debate.
Another technique he has used is the Can of Worms technique. [2] Instead of directly responding to my argument, he opens up a can of arguments that are relevant to the issue, but irrelevant to the main point being argued. The irrational expectation is that I must address all of these side points that are not relevant to the main point or I loose the argument. He may convince those with a short attention span, but not those of a distinguished and articulate intellect who will not become confused as to what the main point is.
One of his most common falsifications of my position is his continual false assertion (he is not quoting me, he is making this up, it's the first step of Strawman Argument creation, falsify the opponents position). He falsely claims I stated this nonsense:
James R. said:
I never said this. I said the opposite. I've continually said that harm can occur while sex occurs. I do not contend that sex causes harm, just as well as drinking Coke doesn't cause harm, but harm can occur while drinking a Coke if the Coke goes down the wrong pipe. This doesn't mean Coca~Cola causes harm. Choking does harm, because it is not necessary for Coke to be present for choking to harm, it could be a bottle of Jones Blue Bubble Gum soda. I pointed this principle out several times in his argument that fails to separate the fact that sex doesn't cause harm and but the actions of rape do.
His continual distortions provides strong evidence he can't take my argument head on. Strawman is an act of desperation. I suggest everyone read what a Strawman argument is, read my argument, then watch how James several times distorts my claims, instead of quoting me. You will find Strawman throughout all of his argument. You will find not one occurrence of Strawman in my argumentation. I have not a need for it.
James thinks winning the argument consists on focusing on cases where abuse does occur, but ignores my agreement that abuse does occur. He doesn't want you to focus on the fact I agree with that. He wants you to ignore that the onus is on him to show abuse occurs in all cases. In order for him to have won the debate, he would need to empirically prove harm occurs in all cases.
In order for him to prove this, he would have needed to show physiological, emotional, and psychological states occurring during the act of sex dynamically form what is called mental illness when when no manipulation, threat, violence, iatrogenic harm is present.
He needed to start from the physiological and emotional level. He needed to show us what the physical body was doing and the chemicals that were occurring (I provided this). He needed to show how the empirical states of emotion produced from sex then go onto create a mental illness. He did not provide this process and neither has the studies he has cited, which makes his argument only subjective. It fails to meet the empirical criteria for science. He has not won the debate on scientific grounds.
In summary his argument is not really an argument:
- He Strawmanned himself through the debate.
- He chose not to argue my actual content, only his Strawman distortions.
- Most of all, he failed to provide the process that proves abuse occurs in all cases.
I on the other hand have based all of my argument on empirical grounds. Surely, with more time, I could expand the number of citations that form this empirical basis. I have shown how emotions can be empirically planted. I have distinguished sexual activity and from harmful activity with empirical evidence at the fundamental physiological, emotional, and psychological level. There is no reason to believe any kind of sex in an of itself causes harm based upon this evidence.
James has not proven sex can cause harm. James instead adds abuse along with sex, then claims sex causes harm. Two different birds altogether.
