You: Oh, absolutely.

You: And my position is that yes, very many parents will do so

You said “a parent is stealing their 30 year old child's phone”, so consent is not required.

This is just a lie. I asked if that's what you were saying, which it seems to be since people switch their phones every few years.

I’m not “back peddling”, I’m conceding that the point is now moot and uninteresting.

I think you mean 'I realize what I'm saying is ridiculous and defensible'.

I’ve seen no evidence from you,

I certainly called this, the reversed burden of proof for your claims.

parents will lose the tracking anyway for technical reasons

Now it's 'technical reasons' and 'the point is uninteresting' instead of "parents that track their small children track them when they're 30 and very many parents will do it".

would continue to try to do so.

Now it's "try to do so". What does that mean? People turn into adults and get new phones. Now you're not saying they will, you're saying "they'll try".

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 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.

Stop with the persecution complex. Pointing out that you don't have evidence is not a personal attack. You could avoid everything by showing evidence but you won't.

I could not show evidence I did not have, which is understandable since I was wrong. You did have a reference, which you showed, and so you did resolve the issue. And after some further confusion about the actual issue (the “will” vs. “will try”), the issue is now resolved.