Pants-of-dog wrote:No, because you are assuming your conclusion.
No, I am supporting it with historical evidence. There is a difference. You said I made a claim (which I denied btw), and then you asked me to support, which this did.
If you want me to EXPLAIN how the fall of the Senate was likely inherent rather than periphery, I can do so, if you ask nicely.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Asking for evidence is now trolling?
Its pretty well common-knowledge the manner in which you do this is not based on honest discourse, likewise, you are not consistent with this. As I demonstrated in other threads, when you are asked to provide evidence for claims, you outright refuse.
You only ask for evidence, not out of a legitimate desire of evidence, but to bog down the conversation and you wager that your opponent does not have time to research, cite, quote, and post source material for every discrete claim that is made in a paragraph or general argument.
If you did desire real discussion of evidence, you would ask for it in a different manner such as: "why is it you believe that democracies create onerious and intrusive regulation?" or "On what basis would you argue that intrusive regulations originate from democratic overreach and not from a mere reaction to unfettered capitalism?"
That is not what you are looking for, because when a general explanation is given, even if quoting source material, you respond with simple one-liners like: "That is not evidence." or "So not evidence, great." etc., etc., usually with little or not interaction with the posted material.
This can be observed in almost all of your conversations and it is common knowledge on PoFo, even among your fellow leftists. You are known as a troll and not as a serious and interactive poster.
I can only speculate as to the reason for your doing so, but it seems that by using a purely defensive/negative approach via short questions, you are avoiding any positive arguments of your own, mainly because you lack the sufficient education and knowledge to do so. Indeed, you rarely make any arguments of your own, and only make odd demands for evidence for every succinct point. Such a method would make you look more intelligent only if you did not resort to it as much as you do, and you do it the most, when you are clearly irritated or have been getting thoroughly walloped in a thread. Which is telling in itself.