Your wording suggests you are in your 20s….or an immature boy in his 30s.
But, on to your supposed “point” that in battle, one side does not allow their opponent to learn of the plan…..so………. what is the point of Q and his/their alleged crumbs….and Your “digging” and research….if nothing shows anything….until all is in history….and then rationalizing and “hindsight” are used?
You disproved your own argument.
Next….
>>2746510
No, it is not. There are official rules to debate. Feel free to Google or DuckDuckGo them so that you do not think I am trying to influence what those are.
Had you been on a high school or college debate team that taught the real rules, actions and procedures, you would know that. I’m encouraging you to do so now. Too many youth, especially many here, could be much, much better....and provide much much more to themselves, their communities, this board, the country and the world....if they understood “moar” of what they thought they did.
Like fish in a barrel...
Next....
No, it is not. There are official rules to debate. Feel free to Google or DuckDuckGo them so that you do not think I am trying to influence what those are.
Had you been on a high school or college debate team that taught the real rules, actions and procedures, you would know that. I’m encouraging you to do so now. Too many youth, especially many here, could be much, much better….and provide much much more to themselves, their communities, this board, the country and the world….if they understood “moar” of what they thought they did.
Like fish in a barrel…
Next….
What’s up is…..is this…
The education failed the youngsters, and it’s obvious in the visible display of their “critical thinking skills” being revealed in their words, argument styles, lack of logic and over-use of fallacies when they cannot refute and/or do. It like an argument presented, namely, one that questions Q or points out the faults, failures and inaccuracies.
Revealing age and lack of education and experience is information.
Just curiously, have you asked “what’s up” with all the “boomer” notes in posts in the last 3000k+ breads?
Why, Q didn’t. On Friday morning, no one posted that McCain would be dead on Saturday. 😂
Do you have a point? Your decision to post suggests that you do. However, based on poor structure, it is difficult to determine what that is. Please clarify if you wish to try to debate. Otherswise, thank you for your time. Have a good day,
Unfortunately, that response fails logic and debate skills because it does not address the premise provided in the original argument, but instead tries to further distract with use of additional fallacies, idiotfag.
Hint: you cannot use the refutation of fallacies by using fallacies.
It was done.👍 You would have known, seen and read that IF you knew how to follow a debate….and were not so lazy or eager to show your arrogance, “wit” and “knowledge” before properly investigating the original “posit [of] a topic” which you joined in progress and added to others’ use of fallacies.
Oooooo……kaaaaaaaay.
So in response to a logical argument you replied with those. 5:5 😂
So….no logical response. 👍 Got it. Thanks for trying.
Next….
Another ad hominem from an old guy.
You must be proud to show that you are not any smarter, more educated, experienced or competent than the youngsters who, at least have the excuse that they did not receive the education in their classes. You, on the other hand, have no excuses for your ineptitude.
Ad hominem
So your argument is that you are old and poorly educated, so that is an excuse and you shouldn’t be included with the young and poorly educated.
Okay, fair enough. Since you prefer it known that you are old and lacking the wisdom and knowledge you should have gained, that is your choice.
However, that is still not a valid response argument to the original points.
You have not painted a good picture of yourself.
So you are an attorney and….you write like that and do not believe in rules? What about the Rule of Law? What kind of “lawyer” doesn’t believe in rules?
Unfortunately, “intuition” and rationalized broken promises don’t fly in law or life.
By the way, if you are a “lawfag” as you claimed, you should have had the competence to investigate back to the original post/premise instead of joining in with trying to use of fallacies as a legit response to use of fallacies.
If that is what you really believe, then clearly you are not a lawyer.
So your appeal to authority fallacy fails……miserably.
Once again, notice the use of ad hominem by one who cannot defend a position.
(As Rush would say, “For those of you in Rio Linda, that means you use name calling and labeling when you cannot refute the point.”)