Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill8
I thought you would decline.
you also apparently do not understand the meaning of ad hominem.
this is where the arguments of your side always end up on this subject. you don't have a leg to stand on so you back away.
this problem is caused by your reliance on bad sources. there are actually great argumenst that can be made, but you guys never make them, because all the bullets you have were manufactured for you by people who know how to generate emotional hooks but don't understand the science.
I urge you to consider how ypu could make arguments that actually make sense and aren't so easily refuted.
here's a clue - nothing can be done about global warming. it's too late to fix it. use that as the basis of your arguments and you can win, or at least debate to a draw.
|
No, I just choose not to debate with someone that clearly uses both selective reasoning and logical fallacies. I presume you don't just sit and talk to walls all day expecting a response, do you?
Now, you're denying the following is Ad hom?
"tell ya what - I'll tie one hand behind my back, just for you."
Let me make it extremely easy for you to understand ad hom.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
You did it to Green, now you're trying with me.
There's a reason you completely ignored my reply to you supplying exactly what you asked for, reverted to another post of mine and then replied with ad hom.