You came to the debate section of an internet discord server.

they're dependent on wide acceptance

that doesnt give you license to make bad faith arguments

and now you're virtue signaling on how you're above discussion.

who?

@Beemann Wait a minute, I didn't make bad faith arguments.

Let's back up and establish positions.

that is not accurate.

"I will apply your statement to X. I will now declare X is not applicable to TOPIC. Ergo u r wrong lol"

I'd like to also point out, that Beeman has strated to ad hominem me.

Attacking me instead of my argument.

oh for fucks sake

Ironic really

I've explained specifically my criticism, and how I think it is causing the discussion to stagnate

No, you attacked my character.

no, I criticized your behaviour

?

and then explained what I was criticizing

Please go over the problem with my argument with quotes in this discussion.

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