Glad we could agree even if you are coming from a point of bad faith now.

Ah pigeon chess. Delightful.

You say calling it a slur was not lie, but it was.

I'm still confused. What did I misrepresent? Calling it a slur was a lie? That's my entire thesis that I have backed at every step.

The way it was used was simply not a slur.

I contend otherwise. Extensively. With logic and rationale that you refuse to engage with.

I apologize if you feel I have not conceded to any of your points.

You don't have to concede. I expect you won't. I'd like you to engage with me rather than put words in my mouth and ignore what you find inconvenient, though even that is out of what I have control over. I've specifically marked why I have dismissed some of your arguments (mostly red herring) while you've relied on the tried and true 'nuh uh' strategy.

I listed three things that, if refuted directly, I would gladly yield. You have ignored this condition that is the basis of having any sort of debate and instead decided that you have won by some metric that you have come up with. Or would you like to babble about context while ignoring it more?