Originally posted by Nibedicus
Why would SM speculating on possible reasons have any relevance to the debate?Edit. You have been challenged to a BZ h1, the fact that you are constantly dodging it kinda shows everyone the level of faith you have on your words.
The thing is, I did answer h1's question. the answer was that Kyle didn't provide any numbers for his equation. h1 continuing to ask why did Kyle provide numbers is just h1 being dishonest.
Originally posted by Silent Master
The thing is, I did answer h1's question. the answer was that Kyle didn't provide any numbers for his equation. h1 continuing to ask why did Kyle provide numbers is just h1 being dishonest.
Thats not the question idiot.
The question is, "Why did Kyle provide values that HE DIDN'T USE?"
You are saying that Kyle didn't provide numbers for his equation. The question assumes this. It's called reading comprehension.
Again with the lame strawmen.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Why would SM speculating on possible reasons have any relevance to the debate?Edit. You have been challenged to a BZ h1, the fact that you are constantly dodging it kinda shows everyone the level of faith you have on your words.
The point is that he will be unable to think of any plausible reason. Which makes it relevant.
It has no relevance as the discussion was about your claim that Kyle made several math errors. What is actually happening is that you were unable to back up your claim so you're trying to discredit Kyle by claiming he was dishonest and then demanding that we prove you wrong.
Problem is, you claiming that Kyle was being dishonest means the burden is on you to prove it. not me, Nib or anyone else to disprove.
Originally posted by Silent Master
It has no relevance as the discussion was about your claim that Kyle made several math errors. What is actually happening is that you were unable to back up your claim so you're trying to discredit Kyle by claiming he was dishonest and then demanding that we prove you wrong.Problem is, you claiming that Kyle was being dishonest means the burden is on you to prove it. not me, Nib or anyone else to disprove.
You you admit to lying about answering the question.
Originally posted by h1a8
The point is that he will be unable to think of any plausible reason. Which makes it relevant.
COMMON TRIAL OBJECTIONS
http://mr_sedivy.tripod.com/usgov_9.html
“A question is speculative if:
It invites or causes the witness to speculate or answer on the basis of conjecture.”
You are asking us to disprove your conjecture by shifting burden of proof and asking us to provide conjecture.
You need to understand how evidence works. You are like a walking case study for bad logic.
This is why you would never accept the BZ, you know people are never going to buy your crap. You are now just trying to change narratives and shift accusations to others.
You need to grow up.
Originally posted by h1a8
@nibedicusThe point is that no other logical explanation exists therefore my claim is correct by deduction.
The only way to prove my claim is false is to provide a counterexample.
Lol. No, what you’re doing is baiting us to engage in an irrelevant debate, we provide you an answer, you take the debate on a tangent and try to discredit conjectural intentions based on your usual flimsy reasoning so that you can distract away from the huge flaw of calls to speculation , shifting of burden of proof and BZ dodging.
We won’t bite so you continually pushing it is just showing everyone how terrible your logic is.
Originally posted by Silent Master
@h1If your next response does not contain at least an honest attempt to back up your claims, we'll take that as you admitting that you're both a troll and a liar.
If you can’t understand how can someone provide numbers to an equation for the public and not use them to obtain his result then you have to consider the alternative.
Therefore, I did back up my claim.
@nibedicus
It’s valid to find logical explanations of why things occurred. It’s done in criminal investigations, it’s done in business, etc.
We use deduction.
If you can’t think of another logical reason for something that’s fairly simple then most likely the alternative is true.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Lol. No, what you’re doing is baiting us to engage in an irrelevant debate, we provide you an answer, you take the debate on a tangent and try to discredit conjectural intentions based on your usual flimsy reasoning so that you can distract away from the huge flaw of calls to speculation , shifting of burden of proof and BZ dodging.We won’t bite so you continually pushing it is just showing everyone how terrible your logic is..