Y’all gotta stop acting like you care about the respectability of your internet arguments.

real

In all honesty, I don't really care what people online have to say about politics, especially half-witted mob-rule enthusiasts and barbarians. All I care for in this regard is whether one is having the decency to be consistent in one's own philosophy. If they lack constitution, I will call it out and mock it.

My mocking is just as inconsequential as the debate itself in truth, but if I can in fact change minds in my belligerence then my efforts bear more fruit than intended.

Yeah, not how that works. Can’t one second pretend like you care and the other run away from your comments.

Re-read.

You're a perfect example of the insincerity that I mock.

Read it, still a bad take.

I have read it.

Your take is indeed bad.

I don’t have a take, so what does that say about this argument and your ability to argue strawmans?

>I don’t have a take, so what does that say about this argument and your ability to argue strawmans?

It tells me you do not understand what a 'take' is.

I do not have a take on the topic on hand. I pointed out your inconsistencies, but I have not expressed a take on the topic.

>I pointed out your inconsistencies

Where?

Keep dodging my point, won’t you.

All of a sudden you have a point too make.

Also, I could point out your spelling errors, and the fact that the second you post your comment it is upvoted, but that’s low hanging fruit.

Surely you’re not on policing the definition of a “take” again instead of addressing the fact that under an image about a straw man you set up a strawman?

>I don't have an opinion on this
>Proceeds to give opinion anyway.

Yep that pretty much sums you up.

>Also, I could point out your spelling errors,

Funny, cause I could do the exact same to you :D

I have no clue why you are dying on the hill that I expressed an opinion on the straw man. I pointed out that you are not one to talk about the straw man, and then you proceeded to immediately prove my point, so like, yeah I’m not gonna waste this time defending my neutrality on this topic any further lmao.

>Surely you’re not on policing the definition of a “take” again instead of addressing the fact that under an image about a straw man you set up a strawman?

Addressing gaps in your logic is a strawman?

Holes in what logic? I have not expressed an opinion, I have not seen someone prove my point for me quicker.