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

not really an ad hom

he's not attacking you, he's attacking the method by which you stated your case

I mean

okay?

@katie yes

So what's the error in how I set it up now?

I offered a myriad of source-independent points regardless...

The error is not your position, it's how you expect it to be debated and your disingenuous standard

I don't really see how the standard is disingenuous

I'd accept any counterpoint really

I'm just using the source out of convenience

you could argue the source contains some illegitimate points

I could argue said points are legitimate

Of course you can argue that it has a legitimate position, but you don't allow the opposition the opportunity to argue against it

my general pattern of typing involves short fragments, which when combined make a full sentence

or point

or something to that effect

If that's what you're complaining about...?

If I take issue to something, I'll try to refute it point by point