Someone explain to this woman that the conversation is not about Ryan Faulk

Is me offering a rebuttal, explaining why a certain anomaly exists, "refusing" it?

I'm accusing you of back unaware that you have a bias

*being unaware

You do too

Everyone has a bias

Of course I do

I'm aware I do

you're just saying I'm not

because I'm offering a rebuttal, and explaining why a certain argument isn't valid

Remember when you cited the IQ study, and the data didn't at all match with what you said.

And I responded with, "Well, it looks like this study was biased, so I'll just stop talking about it from now on."

What could I have done instead?

sorry what?

What are we talking about?

Did that happen this conversation?

No

jesus this conversation is going nowhere

it happened earlier this month

okay, don't really remember

I just think it's interesting that you condescend from an ivory tower while being unaware of what you're doing

I don't keep online shitpost arguments at the forefront of my thoughts

Well, let me put it to you plainly:

If you haven't noticed by now, every time you ask for a source, I always give you one that is more "open" and in agreement with your position, than say, citing Ryan Faulk or some race realism site.
I do this for two reasons
1. Because you'll be more open to it.
2. Because it leaves room for you to defend yourself.

Every time I do this, you look at the article, without allowing room for exchange about what you have just saw, you point out that they have an explanation for the data (which they should), and expect the other person in the debate to accept it unquestioningly without allowing them to challenge it. You take the ground they give you to defend yourself, and then abuse it.

If you are not serious about debating the topic, sure, that's fine, but in that case, if you're in a debate server, you should expect other people to

@The Big Oof stop DESTROYING libtards with FACTS and KNOWLEDGE

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/442001056688373791/498870809746472960/getrektet.jpg

well that was interesting

tbh

Just saying

you still haven't addressed what I've been saying

You last asked me:

"What is Ryan Faulk's position then?" and I never answered it because
1. I don't know
2. His position wasn't being invoked anyways. I was using a hypothetical example, and how you would respond to it if it happened

versus how I you would respond to it if I sent you a source that was on your side

okay...?

This has to do with the topic at hand because...?

It's not directly related, but it's indirectly related because it is addressing your method of argument

okay?

So it's not related to the topic at all

Isn't this an ad hom?

kinda

In a sense

"You're being dishonest here and not arguing in good faith"

you're attacking my supposed, hypothetical inconsistency, rather than my actual points