alt Hacker News> So, besides the "official" reasons in the official press release (which I have already considered), what reasons have I failed to consider?
How many times do I have to repeat myself? I am not a proponent of this change.
I am saying that calling your opponent a liar is not a convincing debate tactic, nor does it add anything new or useful.
So you can start by explaining, in good faith, what is wrong with the argument that you’re dismissing without explanation.
Replies
Dylan16807 • yesterday at 3:36 AM
You don't get to skip backing up your claim while waiting for them to go first.
What are the arguments they haven't bothered to consider?
➕ show 1 reply
breppp • yesterday at 7:53 AM
thanks for being the voice of reason, however futile it is in a social media scoring system
➕ show 1 reply
No matter how many times you repeat your evasions, they are unlikely to persuade anyone that you’re simultaneously entitled to your bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy) and your motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”)