Ok, lets put it this way. Why would I listen to you, slimebeast, in a debate about immigration?
If we are debating about something such as immigration then we would be debating whether or not such and such policy would have a net positive or negative effect on our society and societies around us. We would have to define what is a positive and negative effect prior to the debate, and what the goal of immigration should be based on this. If you use some holy book to inform your belief as to whether or not it will have a positive/negative effect and what that positive/negative effect is and I use statistics, and social sciences, why is your opinion on the debate more or less valid than my own?
You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.
