I originally said (paraphrased) ‘parents will’, and I reasoned that since I was convinced that parents will try, they will mostly succeed. But you have present

I originally said (paraphrased) ‘parents will’, and I reasoned that since I was convinced that parents will try, they will mostly succeed. But you have presented evidence against this, and therefore I was wrong in saying that “parents will”. You seemed, however, from the start to argue against the “trying” part and not the “will succeed” part, which confused the issue, since I still think parents will try. If only you had been more clear, this could have been settled quite soon. > This is just a lie. I should perhaps have worded it like “the phrase you used was…”, which is what I meant. I did not mean to claim that you said some parent was actually stealing someone’s phone. > I certainly called this, the reversed burden of proof for your claims. Since we both claimed things which can be observed, any one of us could potentially give proof. I did not mean to push the burden on proof wholly unto you, only to point out that it was not completely mine. > Now you're not saying they will, you're saying "they'll try". Yes, that is my position. But it’s an uninteresting one, since they’ll fail (as your reference showed). > This was ridiculous from the first reply, how many times are you going to shift these goal post, back peddle, lie and repeat yourself without evidence? You have a real problem with following the guidelines for this forum. I suggest you re-read them. Note, for example, that most of your actual reply now consists entirely of references to what I wrote, and references to me, and not about the actual issue we are supposedly debating. This is usually something to be avoided.