I asked you two cogent questions:
Quote:
1. What sources and evidence have you supplied?
[None.]
2. Do you really think the judge will accept this [example cited] as a valid response to facts that disagree with your position?
[No.]
And based on the expected answers to two rhetorical questions (a tactic I frequently apply, considered valid in a courtroom but you object to), I made a contention:
Quote:
I don't seriously believe you're stupid enough to try that in a courtroom. But it is all you have. Which leads me to believe that you would probably turtle up and get batted around.
To which you replied,
Jubbergun wrote:
You can bait me all you'd like, I'm adding nothing more to the previous conversation. It only serves to feed your insanity. If we all stop arguing with you, you'll eventually dry up and blow off to a place where someone else will. You require the validation. I don't. It is pointless to argue with someone who changes their mind about fundamental principles at the drop of the hat in order to support whatever they're arguing for in a given instance, and I'm certain you wouldn't be able to help yourself but to do that in an official setting, as you have here.
If you offered this response to a cross-examination you would almost certainly be slapped with contempt of court because you are challenging the examination process. That aside:
If this were a courtroom, I'd ask which fundamental principles you are referring to.
A court of law would accept that as a valid response.
I could also point out that your response is not a valid response to a line of questioning.
A court of law would also accept that as a valid response.
You say I couldn't function in a courtroom yet you object to those maneuvers which are most common in that setting and find it impossible to counter them on the same terms.
