Yeah you see it doesn't work that way, you putting up a link and thinking that proves your position. I asked YOU to explain the simple mechanism of what YOU claimed. The deflection and insult to the President simply adds more points to your fail in a simple debate.
Into the Night (04-02-2020)
BLUEXITA Modest Proposal For Separating Blue States From Red
Dear Red-State Trump Voter,
Let’s face it, guys: We’re done.
It is a tragedy that so much of the work that so many men and women toiled at for so long to make this a better country, and a better world, has been thrown away, leaving us all in such needless peril.
This is why our separation in all but name is necessary.
https://newrepublic.com/article/1409...mp-red-america
USFREEDOM911 (04-02-2020)
No it's not. That's a debate technique called "flooding", where you attempt to make your opponent read a big pile of crap to waste his time and distract him. A more common term is called "appeal to authority".
Tack on another fail point for me having to point that out to you.
Into the Night (04-02-2020), USFREEDOM911 (04-02-2020)
USFREEDOM911 (04-02-2020)
It's not a valid debate technique unless you quote directly or paraphrase. If you want to do that then you should provide a link to back up what you said. That in fact would be good practice, which would earn you positive debate points.
Since I describe the mechanism in my own words following simple rules of logic and well known laws of physics or scientific principles, I am not required to provide a source because I am the source.
USFREEDOM911 (04-02-2020)
MAGA MAN (04-02-2020), USFREEDOM911 (04-02-2020)
MAGA MAN (04-02-2020), USFREEDOM911 (04-02-2020)
MAGA MAN (04-02-2020), USFREEDOM911 (04-02-2020)
USFREEDOM911 (04-02-2020)
Bookmarks