I did admit wrong on the orwell part, but you seem to be taking this quite personally to be releasing that kind of frustration out so needlessly without even addressing any of my points. If anything, that shows you have clear bias there, but I need not point it out very much, for your frustration with this debate should've made that quite clear by now. Strong emotions always cloud analytical thinking. And it doesn't matter what arguments anybody may propose to you if you have already made up your mind that much, so arguing under the guise of objectivity or logical correctness is quite disingenuous.
a) From my first reponse, I've been addressing your points. I haven't addressed every single last one of your points, just like you haven't done so with mine, because discussion works that way. Not to mention we'd end up with immense walls of text if we did. I just opted out in that last one, for obvious, declared reasons.
and
b) When the argument switches from arguing about a topic to arguing about the nature of the argument itself, it's boring. You can play semantic games into perpetuity like that. I've been arguing online since before the turn of the century; when it gets to this stage, it never goes anywhere, it's never interesting, and there's never any further insight to be gained by anyone.
My apologies though, I did forget your acknowledgment of the godwin stuff.
