(January 25, 2013 at 8:43 pm)HorribleOffensiveScouser91 Wrote: Well the reason I branded your argument as ludicrous was because originally the whole debate seemed pointless and silly, then I realised it was a one sided debate and the reason he wasn't answering your question didn't seem like an avoidance, rather it seemed like a waste of time debate.The debate wasn't pointless to begin with, but he seems to have made it so by his continual refusal to answer my simple question. I wanted this point to be over quickly, but it is he who has dragged it out. If someone said you had misinterpreted what they said, wouldn't you want to know what they had originally meant? I would, hence why I asked him to state his definition. He did not, and has not yet.
I continue to ask him mostly because I actually want to know what his answer is, but also because it reveals what a disingenuous person he actually is.
Quote:It is funny you brand someone as 'acting like a child' for NOT engaging in your debate of 'you worded this wrong' ... It seems someone would have to be childish to engage in this conversation and to give in to your argument.His entire point was based around taxation of 100 people. What he meant by the word "tax" is called into question by himself, yet he refuses to explain what he actually meant.
Sorry, but he was the one who started this debate when I said his proposal of a government tax was absurd, and he told me he never meant a government tax. What tax did he mean? What other form of tax is there that involves a percentage of money, and the forcible taking of that money?
