what character attack?

Look. Democrats raising the bar to better destroy Republicans will result in a general weakening of both positions, fair?

the problem with your argument is you want to argue about the efficacy of a stupid analogy

one which I didn't initially make I should add

but I went along with to be sure

"My only rebuttal is this. The only way to win this game being run by democrats is to not play it"
"That's War Games and nuclear weapons.

Not applicable to politics in a republic."
there's no logical backing here, you just asserted it, and then suggested any reference to it is ridiculous
"Please make a less extreme analogy that more crediably fits this argument.
I personally can't take the argument seriously in this form."

and now you're being an absolute dipshit about it, to be blunt

My initial statement was "dont play the game"

Oprapsminge, you immediately analogized the discussion to the movie War Games with MAD. You haven't a leg to stand on. I explained it in detail.

you SAID it was to do with nukes and war games

which, by the way, isnt ad hom, because I didnt attack your character *instead* of your argument, I just insulted you in addition

NO I DIDNT

you were the one who brought up muh nukes

and then you used that to discredit his argument

I just decided to use a statement to describe the situation quickly

I quoted you above

well this isn't a debate

@Beemann He accepted the point... Do you want me to cite the bit where he accepted the nuclear weapons analogy as his own?

you want me to point out how him playing along doesnt make your argument good faith?

Sure

Can we get back to the original argument?

it started off not good faith. Him deciding to be charitable does not make it good faith retroactively

Then I'll just pretend to go along with your argument and that won't matter either.

Hard reset please

I also tried to move past the stupid analogy

and explain my reasoning

Any rule you make will be applied to you. If that isn't acceptable, choose your tactics more carefully.

I dont see much point in a hard reset when the trajectory of the discussion is "Let's be passive aggressive and strawman, then say the conversation is ridiculous"

Then its time to be the bigger men/women

You strawmanned me, beemann.

and I would love to hear something about the bulk of what I said

I didn't

You made a character attack.

nope, I attacked behaviour

First foul was yours.

and what's more, ad hom is not merely an attack on character

But attacking a person instead of the argument is an ad hom

right, and I criticized your behaviour

@oprahsminge What was your original point, please?

if you cant distinguish between the two, thats your failing, not mine

Sure... beemann, you know what you did. I'm not convinced. If you have anything to contribute to a discussion then have a discussion. I'm not interested in your sidewise insults.