See, Gabriel, unlike you, I can clearly see where my arguments fall into incoherency, and acknowledge where I have made points of error, or needed to take certain other factors into consideration. However, I have yet to see you do anything other than evasively sneak and nitpick and turn - which you claim I have - when I have squarely faced and confronted every one of your facts within the larger context of my argument. Whereas you simply snipe one point, and then say something else to prove another.

Concessions are one thing -but lest you let pride master you, let me remind you of my real feelings in this matter: "i but marshal a fraction of my powers towards this pitiful debate. to use more would be a waste... i'm just providing practical criticism in case you meet another foe - it'd be embarrassing for me to have admitted i sparred with one of your feeble standard."

[Ed: Unlike you, I don't need to keep piling layers onto other people's arguments and complicating them till they you hope they give up, confused, annoyed and irritated by the disparate irrelevant trains of thought, none of which are less than a mile from the original topic of debate.

Unlike you too, I don't have perfect recall skills.

The thing is, for every point I bring up, you heap endless quantities of qualifications onto it to nullify it. If we proceed like that, no point I make will ever be valid.

This is unfair. You're a Uni student. And a debater too.
I have a mere Higher Secondary Certificate, and have been in atrophy for 13 months.]