With such an abstract presentation, one has to attempt to...
A conclusion to the art of communication
What actually underlies Pro's argument? With such an abstract presentation, one has to attempt to decipher the encoded personal message and this will inevitably present as an ad hominem response in my own argument. Does not Pro's argument itself, also boil down to personal criticism. Or am I still confused? Or does Pro simply view this debate as a literary challenge. Is that their hidden agenda? Initially, with their brief references to scientists and atheism I assumed Pro was leading me off down that well trodden debate track. If this is, simply about Pro's personal grievance with "monotone abuse". I would consider that the assertions I made in Round 2 were an adequate opening counter to that simple proposition. How does Pro view the concepts of Individual ability, individual choice and individual freedom of expression? Let us try again, shall we?