(11-02-2023, 07:55 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: You know what, screw it. Don't bother to answer that question, because you probably can't anyways.

Character and credibility issues are always a part of debate if one can show the character or credibility of an actor impedes their ability to properly function in a debate. If you can find it in the court of law, it's perfectly applicable here. "You're dumb" is not a valid credibility attack. "You have shown yourself to be prone to ignoring context when convenient, as evidenced by this interaction" is valid, especially when that's the subject of the debate. I have addressed every "issue" of this debate, providing substantive disagreement to whatever claim has been levied, up to and including misrepresentations of my own argument. I can and will use his piss-poor attempt to slander me as an example of his inability to properly apply context when he is emotionally or mentally invested in the outcome. If you want to give me a specific point to address, I am more than happy to do so.

You are usually reasonable and you are totally right that there is a time and place for bringing personal attacks into a debate, especially if the person's credibility or guilt are the issue.  But all of us here are really too far removed from these topics, none of us are involved or profiting from being right or wrong in any way, so personal attacks are really not going to be useful here.

However, you weren't reasoned into your opinion of Trump being innocent or guilty and you won't be reasoned out of it. Reason is not the tool to use.

---