If we were going to pass a law that said you cannot import goods that were created by laborers in "insert arbitrary labor concern boundary" then we would actually be combatting bad working conditions.

I'm posting in support of the iWatch because trying to act like not buying one item, or from one company, or making company watch lists we don't patronize, has anything to do with not condoning slavery as a nation, is like pitting citizens against the government. Slavery isn't fought by fining companies or not patronizing them, and iWatches aren't the main problem and saying they are is sensationalizing one story to avoid addressing solutions for the main problem.

I can see why you read these examples that way, but the curse of the straw men started in the original prompt, was continued in structure in that reply, and now you're reading their reply like it's something it's not.

The spirit of these examples for poor, rich, or soon to be rich are about intentions, willingness, approaches, etc. The examples of behavior given are about divining general motivations, not explaining exact behavior. It's not that the person who is trying to be rich actually calls the lawyer, it's that they would or can afford it. The poor person might not be able to afford disputing paternity. It's not that the poor person makes risky decisions to become a parent, it's that the rich or soon to be rich people have been able to get out of their mistakes, often through means the poor person doesn't have.

You're confusing the difference between liking or caring about someone, and maintaining a clear, direct debate structure. They aren't different sides of the same coin because the former keeps the latter from happening, and the latter clarifies the former.

You can feel any way you want towards someone, but if you let that into the point you're discussing, you won't be addressing your point clearly, succinctly, or thoroughly for everyone to understand.

The rules posted here are for maintaining logic as you pursue your point, and they are adequate but not exhaustive in doing so. It's great that you have passion in the spirit of debate, but try not to let that compromise the spirit of debate; debate is not a place for you to insult people who don't accept what you say is true, it's for you to demonstrate what is true without attempting to speak for other participants unless they ask you to.