What argument is that exactly then, Dodik is just stating things he believes are true, he’s not providing any arguments whatsoever.
Just because anyone says anything doesn’t make it worth “debating”, especially if zero arguments were provided. There’s nothing to engage with. “Nuh-uh” is about as argumentative as Dodik is being here.
There are plenty of arguments provided. He is absolutely correct about political rivals being eliminated as we saw blatantly done with the election farce in Romania. He says that Europeans lie about human rights, this is demonstrably a fact with Europe supporting genocide in Gaza. Europe is also banning media from adversaries, removing online privacy, and even pushing to ban VPNs right now. He’s completely correct that the EU is now rewriting history of WW2 and the role USSR played in defeating fascism.
The only one doing nuh-uh arguments here is you bud.
I’m simply providing concrete examples which substantiate the general points he made. These examples clearly show that what he says is correct. I didn’t substitute any arguments, I provided concrete examples of you. So, now try engage with the arguments instead of doing artless trolling.
Dodik made statements. He didn’t back it up with anything. He provided no argumentation, nor any examples. So when you say “attack the argument, not the person”, the question is “which argument, Dodik did not provide any”.
If I were to baselessly claim “Yoghtos is secretly three porcupines in a people-suit”, there’s no reason to ‘debate’ that statement; you dismiss it out of hand because I don’t provide any reasoning or argumentation as to why this is supposed to be true.
You provided an argumentation for him, which could be debated. Dodik did not.
No, that’s exactly how it works. Dodik talks about the trends happening in Europe, and he didn’t provide examples for things that are well known. You don’t seem to understand what the word baseless means. If I say the sky is blue, I don’t need to provide a scientific treatise explaining on why it’s blue.
I didn’t provide any argument for him. I literally went through the article and provides concrete examples for his claims. You evidently have no clue what making an argument means.
If I say the sky is blue, I don’t need to provide a scientific treatise explaining on why it’s blue.
To people who agree with you, you won’t. But to someone who is colourblind, or blind even, you do need to provide actual evidence.
If someone says “the sky is purple”, and someone else says “that’s nonsense, that guy claims everything is purple” you can’t just go “no but counter his reasoning for why the sky is purple”, because no reasoning was provided.
I have no idea why Dodik thinks what he thinks. He didn’t say why he said what he said.
You evidently have no clue what making an argument means.
An argument is a statement or set of statements that you use in order to try to convince people that your opinion about something is correct.
Feel free to cite the original article where Dodik provides a statement used to convince the reader/listener of why his opinion is correct. I’m not interested in continuing this until you do.
Again, I provided substantiating evidence for the arguments he makes. You failed to engage with the argument itself or with the evidence provided.
If you claim to have no idea why Dodik thinks what he thinks then you clearly need to work on your reading comprehension instead of spending time trolling here because he’s pretty clear on that in the article.
From your own link, which you obviously didn’t read:
An argument is a discussion or debate in which a number of people put forward different or opposing opinions.
Dodik is putting forward an opinion in the article. Perhaps you also need to look up what the word opinion means?
Dodik is putting forward an opinion in the article. Perhaps you also need to look up what the word opinion means?
Did you miss the “An argument is a discussion or debate” part of the definition you quoted? Dodik isn’t in a discussion or a debate, he’s just monologuing.
If you claim to have no idea why Dodik thinks what he thinks then you clearly need to work on your reading comprehension instead of spending time trolling here because he’s pretty clear on that in the article
Cite the article then. I’ve asked you this several times now. Stop dancing around it and dodging the question.
What argument is that exactly then, Dodik is just stating things he believes are true, he’s not providing any arguments whatsoever.
Just because anyone says anything doesn’t make it worth “debating”, especially if zero arguments were provided. There’s nothing to engage with. “Nuh-uh” is about as argumentative as Dodik is being here.
There are plenty of arguments provided. He is absolutely correct about political rivals being eliminated as we saw blatantly done with the election farce in Romania. He says that Europeans lie about human rights, this is demonstrably a fact with Europe supporting genocide in Gaza. Europe is also banning media from adversaries, removing online privacy, and even pushing to ban VPNs right now. He’s completely correct that the EU is now rewriting history of WW2 and the role USSR played in defeating fascism.
The only one doing nuh-uh arguments here is you bud.
Did Dodik mention Romania? Did he mention the genocide in Gaza? Did he mention VPNs? Or rewriting history then?
Oh that’s right, he didn’t. Are you hallucinating a different article?
You asked to counter Dodik’s arguments, then substituted your own.
I’m simply providing concrete examples which substantiate the general points he made. These examples clearly show that what he says is correct. I didn’t substitute any arguments, I provided concrete examples of you. So, now try engage with the arguments instead of doing artless trolling.
That’s not how that works.
Dodik made statements. He didn’t back it up with anything. He provided no argumentation, nor any examples. So when you say “attack the argument, not the person”, the question is “which argument, Dodik did not provide any”.
If I were to baselessly claim “Yoghtos is secretly three porcupines in a people-suit”, there’s no reason to ‘debate’ that statement; you dismiss it out of hand because I don’t provide any reasoning or argumentation as to why this is supposed to be true.
You provided an argumentation for him, which could be debated. Dodik did not.
No, that’s exactly how it works. Dodik talks about the trends happening in Europe, and he didn’t provide examples for things that are well known. You don’t seem to understand what the word baseless means. If I say the sky is blue, I don’t need to provide a scientific treatise explaining on why it’s blue.
I didn’t provide any argument for him. I literally went through the article and provides concrete examples for his claims. You evidently have no clue what making an argument means.
To people who agree with you, you won’t. But to someone who is colourblind, or blind even, you do need to provide actual evidence.
If someone says “the sky is purple”, and someone else says “that’s nonsense, that guy claims everything is purple” you can’t just go “no but counter his reasoning for why the sky is purple”, because no reasoning was provided.
I have no idea why Dodik thinks what he thinks. He didn’t say why he said what he said.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/argument
Feel free to cite the original article where Dodik provides a statement used to convince the reader/listener of why his opinion is correct. I’m not interested in continuing this until you do.
Again, I provided substantiating evidence for the arguments he makes. You failed to engage with the argument itself or with the evidence provided.
If you claim to have no idea why Dodik thinks what he thinks then you clearly need to work on your reading comprehension instead of spending time trolling here because he’s pretty clear on that in the article.
From your own link, which you obviously didn’t read:
Dodik is putting forward an opinion in the article. Perhaps you also need to look up what the word opinion means?
Did you miss the “An argument is a discussion or debate” part of the definition you quoted? Dodik isn’t in a discussion or a debate, he’s just monologuing.
Cite the article then. I’ve asked you this several times now. Stop dancing around it and dodging the question.