Debunking Randy Shipley's anti-Trump Argument of August 2019 Part 13

Randy Shipley: You post no facts, you deflect and post a lot of opinions 

False. Advancing a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument requires a lot more words than just expressing an opinion. Additionally, going into an argument "with just an opinion" would not get that person far.

Facts allow one to keep arguing without needing to hide behind a link as a response. You ran out of argument and hid behind a website to advance your argument for you. Not something you'd do if you had the facts on your side.

If anybody did any deflection and opinion posting, it was you. That was all you had, albeit wrong information. However, that was the only way you could stay in the debate.

If I weren't advancing facts, just opinion, you'd easily be able to answer the simple, straight forward, yes/no questions that I asked you. You didn't. You ignored the first one that I asked, then ignored the additional questions that I asked.

Why? The right answer to these questions destroys your argument. Answering those questions truthfully and accurately requires you to counter your own argument. These questions force you to see how erroneous your argument is.

The questions that you refused to answer:

"Did any of these indictments involve knowingly colluding with Russian agents? YES [   ] NO [   ]

[As of September 2019] "Did we have job growth after President Trump took office? YES [   ] NO [   ]

[As of September 2019] "Has unemployment gone down since President Trump took office? YES [   ] No [   ]

[As of September 2019] "Has unemployment gone down for minority groups since President Trump took office? YES [   ] No [   ]

"Copy and paste these questions and their yes/no options to your reply. Put an 'X' in the box that represents your answer. Spare me any additional thoughts you'd want to add to this question. Your failure to answer this question will result in my asking it again in my next reply to you." -- [Name Redacted]

If I was just expressing an opinion, I wouldn't be able to craft these questions. They require both facts and logic. If you were expressing facts, you'd easily be able to answer these questions.

You dodged these questions because you know for a fact that you can't answer them without also destroying your entire argument. By extension, you know that you're wrong. Ignoring these questions "spares you" from having to admit or show the others that you're wrong. This, in turn, gave you a false sense of "not" being proven wrong.