Discussion about Martin/Zimmerman debate

[Wind Song]

Looking forward to this.

[jimnyc]

WS - please respect what was posted in the opening post of the debate, in big bold red letters. Instead of deleting, I moved your reply here.

** Reminder - this is to remain just between these two. Nobody else should be replying in this thread. Any replies outside of these 2 will be deleted and the offender will be banned from this section of the board. **

[Wind Song]

I have no problem with traveling.

[jimnyc]

I have no problem with traveling.

It's reading that has me troubled. We want the debates to remain free from flaming and any posts from anyone other than the 2 participants.

[Wind Song]

It's reading that has me troubled. We want the debates to remain free from flaming and any posts from anyone other than the 2 participants.

I'm waiting to see the debate.

[jimnyc]

I'm waiting to see the debate.

It'll happen, but they aren't quick. The thread is only for them 2 to reply in, and there is technically no time limit, so it could be one more day and it could take a week to reach 5 posts apiece.

[Wind Song]

Good format. It makes sense to take some time to really debate and use facts. I'm looking forward to reading it.

[Missileman]

Good format. It makes sense to take some time to really debate and use facts. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Why? All I've ever seen you do is ignore facts.

[Wind Song]

Why? All I've ever seen you do is ignore facts.

What would make your general assertion stronger is to provide a specific example of a time when I ignored a fact. Use quotes.

[Missileman]

What would make your general assertion stronger is to provide a specific example of a time when I ignored a fact. Use quotes.

Go to the thread you started called "Black kid killed for being black". You can just about randomly pick any of your posts in that thread as an example...you ignored facts throughout the entire thread.

[Wind Song]

Go to the thread you started called "Black kid killed for being black". You can just about randomly pick any of your posts in that thread as an example...you ignored facts throughout the entire thread.

No, I started with a premise, and I still think it's correct. That Martin died b'c Zimmerman racially profiled him, initiated contact with him, starting a fight, and then killed him.

It's a point of view and there is evidence to back it.

[Missileman]

No, I started with a premise, and I still think it's correct. That Martin died b'c Zimmerman racially profiled him, initiated contact with him, starting a fight, and then killed him.

It's a point of view and there is evidence to back it.

Sorry, but your premise doesn't fit the FACTS that you're ignoring.

[Wind Song]

Sorry, but your premise doesn't fit the FACTS that you're ignoring.

I could say the same to you.

[Mr. P]

WS - please respect what was posted in the opening post of the debate, in big bold red letters. Instead of deleting, I moved your reply here.

** Reminder - this is to remain just between these two. Nobody else should be replying in this thread. Any replies outside of these 2 will be deleted and the offender will be banned from this section of the board. **

Looking forward to this.

Why? All I've ever seen you do is ignore facts.

What would make your general assertion stronger is to provide a specific example of a time when I ignored a fact. Use quotes.

Just sayin.

[Missileman]

I could say the same to you.

No you can't. I haven't posted a premise that is contrary to the facts. In fact, I've been a proponent of waiting until the facts are in rather than jump to unsubstantiated conclusions.