I am not impressed by JayUtahs refusal to answer direct questions. He does it a lot.
Yes, I do it every time you pose irrelevant questions as a way to distract from your inability to answer mine. There's even a name for this shady tactic: whataboutism. You seem to think no one can see you frantically trying to change the subject when cornered, or frantically trying to shove arguments into my mouth that I never made.
Case in point: you brought up the Lai memo again. I asked you to tell me, in your own words, what you think is meant by some of the language in it. You obviously don't know the answer. So you responded instead by asking me unrelated questions about the origins of the universe, for no reason other than to pretend I'm now the one who's on the hook for something, and that you're now absolved from revealing your ignorance.
You need to realize that you're not fooling anyone when you do this.
I have my own opinion as to why he uses such a tactic of avoidance.
I'm sure you do, and I'm sure the reason you imagine paints me in unfavorable colors. Much of your argumentation stems from the habit of imagining something and then carrying on as if the thing you imagined was incontrovertibly true.
The real reason, of course, is that you are not very skilled at hiding your clumsy rhetorical stunts. As a result, I'm not falling for them. You're mad not because you're being treated shabbily, but because your critics are too sharp to let you get away with sketchy tactics that may have worked for you elsewhere but clearly aren't working here.
Laughs or not, you are at least genuine in engaging in a debate.
Whereas you are not. Like so many other things you pretend to do well, you're actually considerably unskilled when it comes to debating a subject in public.
There's the basic issue that you don't know what you're talking about much of the time. So even if the discussion isn't adversarial, you're not prepared enough to have it.
But more to the point, you seem to think you can perform sophomoric debate antics without getting caught. Sure, the classic pivot is a way to steer clear of uncomfortable topics. There are ways to do it well, such that it can't be seen for what it is. But you are so very
bad at it. And when you're that bad, hammering the impression that was supposed to be created by a successful pivot just makes people laugh harder.
Commensurately, your incessant straw-manning doesn't help you either. Again, this too can be an effective rhetorical strategy if executed with skill and subtlety. The way you do it is as subtle as a freight train. And when it doesn't work, instead of abandoning the tactic, you just press harder. You become even more obviously desperate to have others adopt the positions you're trying to dictate for them.
Then there are the straight-up insults. It's not really possible, even among skilled debaters, to coat blatant insults with enough sugar to keep them from backfiring. Sure, you can draw an opponent out into a situation where he makes himself look foolish. But you just charge right in.
Complaining that other people are disingenuous for not playing along with your sorry performance doesn't really fly. That only works when it isn't painfully obvious you aren't debating in good faith. I've given you many serious posts, some of them spoon-feeding you the difficult mathematics you would need to do in order to test your claim. You didn't bother to read any of it. Instead you claimed that dealing with my genuine attempts to help you was too laborious. And lately your engagement has devolved to inventing new daily reasons why you are exempt from engaging your critics.
