- 489
- 139
- Thread starter
- #81
1. Burden of rejoinder is very present since you're dropping the argument
2. I proved this wasn't taken out of context and you conceded
3. I don't need to prove the consistency. Consistency is when a fact can be true at the same time with other facts, so this is consistent via the reasoning I provided.
4. I did show that it referenced Silver's Chaos Control.
5. Yes, but controlling space and time has many extensions, and you don't get all of them by using some of them, that's a hasty generalization and a composition fallacy.
6. There is no burden of proof on me, I claimed the negative. Stop flinging that term around like apeshit when you've been educated several times that that isn't how it works.
7. You didn't prove the absence of evidence lmao, I gave proof for my points and backed them up. You actually did concede though, use terms you still don't understand, claimed fallacies and philosophical razors when they were unapplicable and actually applied to you, failed to realize the fallacies you yourself committed even when they were brought directly to you, and you still didn't show any evidence for what you claim.
8. I don't have to, you're asking me to prove a negative. You can't even get your rhetorical banter right. Concession accepted, pal.
2. I proved this wasn't taken out of context and you conceded
3. I don't need to prove the consistency. Consistency is when a fact can be true at the same time with other facts, so this is consistent via the reasoning I provided.
4. I did show that it referenced Silver's Chaos Control.
5. Yes, but controlling space and time has many extensions, and you don't get all of them by using some of them, that's a hasty generalization and a composition fallacy.
6. There is no burden of proof on me, I claimed the negative. Stop flinging that term around like apeshit when you've been educated several times that that isn't how it works.
7. You didn't prove the absence of evidence lmao, I gave proof for my points and backed them up. You actually did concede though, use terms you still don't understand, claimed fallacies and philosophical razors when they were unapplicable and actually applied to you, failed to realize the fallacies you yourself committed even when they were brought directly to you, and you still didn't show any evidence for what you claim.
8. I don't have to, you're asking me to prove a negative. You can't even get your rhetorical banter right. Concession accepted, pal.