Predictable. A textbook example of rhetorical acrobatics. Let’s address your points—or rather, your evasions masquerading as points. Your habit of declaring 'fallacy' as a trump card is a perfect example. Identifying a perceived fallacy doesn’t engage with the argument itself—it’s like calling a fire ‘arson’ while refusing to grab a bucket of water. Repeating 'that’s a fallacy' is not a substitute for discussion; it’s a well-practiced evasion, and you’ve leaned on it consistently.
Your accusation that I’ve fabricated your beliefs is ironic, considering your repeated projections about my supposed inability to accept differing opinions. I haven’t 'read your mind,' Calron—I’ve read your words, tangled as they often are. Your dismissal of critiques as 'fake mind reading' while accusing me of projecting motives onto you is both amusing and self-defeating. If you feel misunderstood, perhaps it’s worth considering how clearly—or unclearly—you articulate your arguments.
Your repeated use of Trump’s actions as definitive proof, while ignoring his broader pattern of ambiguity and inaction, is another example of missing the forest for the trees. Yes, isolated instances of Trump condemning hate exist, but leadership isn’t about checking a box once—it’s about consistent, principled action. Clinging to singular events as though they absolve his failures proves selective reasoning, not a strong case.
Finally, framing my extended engagement as evidence of 'nerves struck' is a clever attempt, but it falls flat. Patience isn’t frustration, and critique isn’t concession. If this exchange has lasted a week, it’s because unraveling your tangents takes time. The irony, of course, is that you accuse others of being unwilling to engage while consistently refusing to concede even minor points. It’s a clear reflection of a debate strategy focused on avoidance rather than genuine discourse. If you’re capable of engaging substantively, now is the time—but somehow, I suspect we’ll circle back to the same evasive patterns as you've already proven yourself to do.
Case in point, I've conceded many things and acknowledged the points you bring up. And you fail to acknowledge any of mine. Yours is a demonstration of your rhetorical impotence. I had hoped to help you find your way out of it, but you seem to think that logic is the end of wisdom. Rather, it's the beginning of wisdom. I had hoped that in your last reply you'd crawl out your circular reasoning, projection and gas lighting.
"The left is extreme." well yeah, when you're a right wing extremist, centrists seem extreme to you. So imagine what an average left winger must be to you - crazy extreme. Last comment, promise. I'm not really interested in debating you anymore unless you can grow a pair big boy legs and actually formulate a decent argument - which you haven't.
And to top this all off, you got super defensive to such a point I've had you in here for two weeks and you're still defending it... You are who my meme is about.
Lol your approach of categorizing arguments as fallacies instead of genuinely engaging with them is a clear evasion. Claiming 'goalpost shifting' is unfounded when the standards you're alleging have changed remain consistent: effective leadership requires transparency, responsibility, and prompt action. Repeatedly failing to meet these criteria—either through ambiguity on racism or through ties with extremists—is not about evolving standards, but rather a leader consistently underperforming.
Likewise, your frequent use of 'ad hominem' claims seems empty when opponents are disputing your reasoning, not your identity. Labeling these critiques as personal attacks serves to evade responsibility, rather than showcasing critical thinking.
Ultimately, your chosen examples and dependence on unrelated justifications reveal an inconsistency in your method. If you want to participate in a meaningful discussion, begin by tackling the real issues presented instead of evading them with rhetorical strategies. Misclassifying each critique as a fallacy won't bolster your argument—it merely undermines your credibility.
let’s not act like I haven’t intentionally created a strawman here—your continual application of the same evasive strategies almost invites it." Regard it as less an assault on your viewpoint and more an unfortunate indication of the dialogue you've offered.
You've shouted 'fallacy' like a town crier proclaiming a disaster, but you've never taken the time to consider the essence of the arguments. You’ve moved the goalposts so frequently that they could easily have wheels, and you’ve mentioned Democrats and the media far more than you’ve discussed Trump’s leadership. Consistently, you’ve sidestepped, distorted, and disregarded instead of participating in authentic dialogue.
This isn’t a guess; it’s a trend you’ve meticulously shown. My 'strawman' doesn’t misrepresent your methods—it reflects them back to you with harsh clarity. If this seems unjust, it may be highlighting the empty center of your strategy: evading responsibility by any means necessary.
Here’s additional rope for you. You are welcome to reject the pattern, assert that the criteria have shifted yet again, or blame me for prejudice. We’ve witnessed it previously, and I’m sure we’ll witness it again. The crucial issue is whether you'll break free from this rhetorical cycle and engage in the real conversation—or if this perpetual loop is everything you have.
Your arguments rely on constant deflection and inconsistent standards. You accuse others of "goalpost shifting" while moving the conversation to unrelated topics like Democrats, DEI programs, or antisemitism on the left to avoid addressing Trump’s leadership failures. You cherry-pick Trump’s condemnations while ignoring his delayed or ambiguous responses that emboldened extremists, like “stand back and stand by” or “very fine people on both sides.”
You claim changing positions shows "critical thinking" for Trump but call it "flip-flopping" for Democrats, proving your double standard. And labeling critiques of your reasoning as "ad hominem" is just another way to dodge accountability. If your arguments were solid, you wouldn’t need this much mental gymnastics to defend them. Address Trump’s actions directly for once.
