Typically in a debate, stating your beliefs is either a) a prelude to arguing for them or b) irrelevant.

I like strawberry ice cream!

Agreed. We need a universal strawberry ice cream plan at all costs.

Ok, let me outline this for you since you're obviously clueless. To clarify, Moorobot said,

And I responded,

The very obvious point of my response is to point out that Moorobot's statement was worthless. He's saying that he believes in trying to minimize the harm done to humans "by nature" as if this is somehow anti-AC, but it's simply not. Thus, I pointed out that what he literally said there I agree with 100%, and then pointed out what our real disagreement was. In no way is this trying to argue whether or not "any solution which requires harming people in other ways is unacceptable". If I was presenting an argument here, it was that his post was stupid, a waste of space and just confuses the actual issues. Thus, the "of course" part of my statement was quite literally a statement of my beliefs and not itself an argument of any kind, although my reply as a whole is certainly an argument for his post being stupid. Then you said,

Exactly correct, because I was stating that it was that difference in our beliefs that was relevant and that what he said was neither relevant nor even a difference in beliefs and thus a completely worthless statement. So there was no argument concerning that statement, because I wasn't arguing it. Stating my belief was support for my argument that his post was stupid, not an argument for itself.

What am I asserting? That harming people is unacceptable? It's a statement of belief. If you have a different belief, that's fine, and having a discussion about that belief is fine, but that was not the point of my post.

Burlap is the house negro, not the field slave.

Didn't the slaves kill a lot of the house negros when they were set free?