>>23243897 Tyb o7

>>23243805 me lb

In other words, is the definition of strawman argument itself a strawman?

I'm sending this to you, as you raised the issue of straw man arguments at the beginning, but telling people to shut up because it's a straw man argument is absurd.

In other words, it's necessary for individuals to state their logic, not just to determine whether it's a straw man argument or not, but also to clarify the essential direction.

And if you say that the direction of other people's logic is off the mark, it will immediately become a straw man argument.

In the end, it will be a clash of essential points of view.

I think a straw man argument refers to intentional misleading, but if you intentionally argue in a positive direction, do you think that would also be a straw man?

The topic here is QResearch, so I think it will ultimately be something related to 'Q'

So, with that in mind, I'll say that if POTUS were to announce that the vaccine issue I mentioned earlier is related to this movement, it would be impossible to do anything about, right?

I think that the people who participated in this movement have the ability to think for themselves, etc., and there may be other D-chess level talks, so I just want to say that I would not behave like you.