Tonya Zylka: [Redacted] just stop, your long "rebuttles"
First, the lengths of my rebuttals hinge heavily on the length of the posts that I am rebutting. The longer the posts that I am rebutting, the longer my rebuttal. The shorter the posts that I am rebutting, the shorter my rebuttals. The more BS there is, in the post that I am rebutting, the longer my rebuttals. See BS asymmetry.
There is a clear cut "cause and effect" going on here. Do you want me to reduce my post length? Then it behooves your side of the argument to reduce your post lengths. By extension, your side of the argument needs to reduce or eliminate the BS in their responses. The less BS in their argument, the less I would need to say as I would not have as much to debunk.
Second, you have problems with my "long" rebuttals, but don't have issues with Dale's long rebuttals? None of the rebuttals that I have provided in this thread compare to how long a rebuttal I posted in the past. The longest rebuttals were over 75 MS Word pages long. The posts that I made here do not compare.
Tonya Zylka: like you are some sort of law student are just making you look foolish.
This statement shows that you are flirting with cognitive dissonance.
No, my style and my post do not make me look foolish. They make you, and the others that I've debunked, look foolish. I'm taking that by saying, "law student", you are addressing what others describe as a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument. This includes the yes/no questions that I ask.
Those questions encapsulate much of what we are arguing. You know, Dale knows, and I know that the simple, straightforward, common-sense answer to those questions obliterates the argument that you and Dale advance. You guys cannot answer those questions, with just a yes or no, without destroying your own arguments.
The fact that you guys avoid answering them, per the parameters that I set, speaks volumes. It demonstrates that you guys don't have confidence in your own arguments. All of a sudden, you guys look foolish. That's what is going on.
Tonya Zylka: STOP
I would if the opposition does not give me anything to debunk. However, as long as they give me something to debunk, I will continue to dismantle their arguments. I enjoy doing this.
Tonya Zylka: I will be blocking you in the future
You see, this is the difference between you and me. If you had the facts on your side, you would not be threatening me with blocking. Why? You would gladly advance a fact-based argument. I don't resort to demanding the opposition to stop responding on my threads as my sole response.
In fact, when I had individuals argue with me on a thread on my wall, I engaged them in a debate. I don't make demands on them to leave my wall simply because they are arguing with me.
I have the facts on my side. I take pleasure in destroying their arguments on my wall. No need to threaten them with blocking or unfriending.
The fact that you are threatening me, for continuing to argue, indicates that you have a weak argument. It is something that the losing side in the argument would do. It is a way for them to regain control in a situation they feel they have lost control of. They would not feel that way if they were winning.
Tonya Zylka: you are NOT as smart as your copy and paste "facts"
You're flirting with cognitive dissonance again.
Your intellect is telling you that I have a valid argument. It is also telling you that fact, reason, and logic are on my side. And, the yes/no questions that I've asked you guys on this thread... To copy and paste with just a yes/no response... Definitely make you guys see the validity in my arguments.
However, your ego overrules your intellect. The issues with control and anger combine to drive you guys to continue to engage in debate.
You guys think that by not answering my questions per the parameters that I set, that you somehow have a valid reason to continue the argument. A simple "yes" or "no" response would be you guys destroying the respective arguments that you guys are making.
However, not answering my questions per the parameters that I set speaks volumes. Guaranteed, if the answer to those questions helped your arguments, you guys would be on it like a hungry man on food at a buffet. But, you guys... As with other leftists when faced with similar questions... Avoided those questions.
That tells me that intellectually, you guys know that your arguments are invalid. However, you guys' egos override your intellect. It causes you guys to generate the responses that I'm now addressing.
If I were "not as smart" as the copy and paste facts, you would have no need to threaten to block me. You would continue to argue with me to make a point about my side of the argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment