@Deleted User and you ? do you expect me to provides you *sources* when I say that I would bang your hairy pimpled ass ? 😄

hmm ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ?

"Also, Homu when you make claim that towelie is wrong because he does not prove his position with a source, you are shifting the burden of proof without realising that your position also is undefined to be true or false. You make an argument from ignorance."

I didn't claim that it was inherently *wrong*, I did make it clear that the lack of a source was a big issue though. As I said twice when presented the options, I chose to ignore it due to a lack of a source rather than accepting it blindly or outright claiming it was wrong.

"You constantly use appeal to ignorance, you also often use circular reasoning, like right now actually where you are all "you have to because that is the rules""

Actually, it was because he made the claim as he was presenting his argument towards me (How the things Trump's dealing with now are of low priority and are moving us backwards rather than advancing us as a society), and that I was not familiar with one of the things he brought up. Because he had made that claim in his argument towards me, the burden of proof was thus left on him as it was his responsibility in order to truly provide a meaningfull argument.

"your arguments are riddled with ad hominem you often make use of equivocation to change your arguments afterwards."

Usually as a joke or intentionally to agitate the person on the other side in order to hopefully push them into actually providing something a bit more worthwhile in the discussion (in this case, documented sources detailing the change that Trump had enstated regarding abortions, be it opinionated or not. In the case they are opinionated, multiple independent sources stating the same details, 3 at minimum with 2 being at least acceptable).

"Negative claims are also claims"

And if needed I could go ahead and provide sources as well, when asked. I didn't need sources on his other claims, just the one. I would provide that same level of respect by giving sources as well if asked.

Sorry for the late replies, I was busy watching stuff

so, you're telling me that when someone make a claim, you expect mutliple sources to back up the said claims or you simply ignore them? Can you tell me clearly why don't you search for it if this subject have any interest in your eyes?

I just typed "trump global gag rule" on google and guess what: `About 1,690,000 results (0.60 seconds) `

I said if the first one is heavily opinionated, then multiple would be required. Not "always provide multiple"

well, since earlier I was searching for the exact law text that he signed because imho, every single media is opiniated

I can't find it though because I lack the methods to do so. My wife is much more knowledgeable than me on law as it's her domain of work and thus I have no issues finding stuff about french laws but I can't really find real infos about this issue on the web.

None of those responses are refutations homu

How so? @Chaos

all I can say is that this law forbid foreign NGOs to promote, help, advertise or anything abortion related to US people on US soil (And maybe US NGO on foreign soil but I'm not sure on that point, plus it doesn't really concern you guys)

you will tell me that it's another claim that I don't back up, but a lot of imigrants or non-english speakers in the US depends on these NGOs for this subject

if you want exact sources, trump did that on the 23th of this month, do yourself a favor and please search for it

@Homu H. Saying that something is intentional doesn't change the fact that it remains a logical fallacy

That was with simply one response, you said "none of those."

And I wasn't saying that as a means to refute it, it was just an explanation.

Yea, I really don't think I can explain it to you in a way you will understand. Quite frankly it's too much effort. I don't expect you to change the way you respond if that is the level of explantion you provide for the things I brought up. Its far past what I can be fucked doing to write you an essay explaining logical fallacies and why your responses do not provide conclusive argument or even convinicing ampliative argument.

hey chaos, you should really back up that claims with sources or you will get a fail from homu's class !

Oh NO!

Fuck

:p

So basically there's nothing then

it's already too late for me apparently as I'm an autist that push my students to fail, but it's still time for you chaos

In my defense I did say twice now I was just gonna throw out the claim and move on

no, not the hammer your honor

I always thought it was funny how you guys call the judge in english... "Mr. Justice". pfahaha

1 be homu
2 Get into argument
3 repeat strange incredulous reasoning
4 fail to understand claims
5 demand explanation
6 repeat steps 3-5
7 when other person can’t be fucked anymore claim victory

🏆 here you go

You explained the problem with one of the explanations and then went "HAH UR 2 STOOPED TO UNDERSTAND ITD BE A WAIST OF MY TIM!!!" when I told you that you only responded to the one easy one

i'm gonna try an Ad Homunem

do shemale have periods too ?

Oh I've spotted another fallacy in the wild, here folks we have the illusive Straw man.

But that's pretty much what happened tho

You just said it'd be a waste of your time going through it and that I wouldn't understand

You never responded to the other explanations

You specifically targetted the one that validated you and acted as if I was defending myself while saying you were wrong, despite the fact I was saying "Yes I understand and you're right, here's why I do it"

@Null ok