I am right in regards to everything I related. The other person is the one in the wrong.
Maybe it comes down to how you see debate.
This really isn't a "maybe" from any side of the isle.
You'd be pushing for a technical win with little care for the truth of the matter. It also suggests the possibility that your facts/evidence might be weak and that maybe you're trying to lean on them without having them looked at too closely.
Wanting the process adhered to is not a technicality even though idiots call it such.
If they can not properly present and respond, their case it is the weak case.
If they choose not inform their self of that which came before their position is weak.
If they choose to ignore and not refute the information provided they fail.
It is not incumbent on the other person to continually provided the information over and over again especially as it was already provided and ignored.
And it was provided a post or two prior to their asking for it. That is their problem.
Let me exemplify what I am speaking to.
Tom makes a post refuting/replying to what Tim said.
Tim: Quotes Tom's refutation, totally ignores it, and then makes the same argument which Tom had already refuted/replied.
Tom then quotes Tim's and tells them that their argument was already refuted by what they quoted even.
Tim absurdly asks; Where?
Tom then says; In what you quoted in your previous post.
Tim then goes on a rant about not being provided links or post numbers when it was just one post back.
This continues on, and on , and on.
The absurdity is all on Tim and not on Tom.
I would just look it up in either my own or the other persons post history, regardless of which side I was on.
I understand. Yet this is a tactic the other poster uses. It is deflection from their failed argument. I am not going to play their game. They can either pay attention and refute the first time
(the honest way to debate) or they can continue to ignore and make false claims like they have. Either way it is all on them, as I am not obligated to continually provided that which was already provided and that which they themselves quoted but chose to ignore.
Asking for verifiable evidence is part of debate.
Yes it is.
As it was already provided and quoted by the person asking for it, they are playing a game.
As it was pointed out to them that they had "just" quoted it, asking for it again is nothing but a dishonest game of deflection, especially as all they had to do was go back and look at what they quoted.
If you then claim you already provided it and the person asking for it cannot find it, it is perfectly proper to ask where it is. You then should supply the post number, or a link, or even the evidence again. But when somebody will spend post after post after post on page after page after page claiming they already provided it instead of simply doing what was requested, it is almost always because the person NEVER PROVIDED AVE PROVIDED IN THE FIRST PLACE. And their continued impotence to provide proof that they did shows they are up to simple intellectual fraud trying to pull a fast one.
As it was pointed out that they had just quoted it, everything you related is irrelevant.
They were the one in the wrong for either not paying attention, or purposely ignoring it. That also makes them in the wrong for going in circles crying about it not being pointed out again, especially as the same argument had been used again with that poster (which they still failed to refute) as well as with another poster.
All that person did was go in circles dishonestly crying as a means of distraction about that which they were already aware and failed to refute.
That is a game that I wont be playing.