This is really, really, really bad. @HeatherEHeying @BretWeinsteinhttps://twitter.com/michaelmoreno2k/status/1188175155240947712 …
1:10
Show this thread
-
As to the narrower point I think you are asking about, a transparently weak argument is not likely to be a winner, BUT obvious sophistry can be, and often is, in a formal academic debate.
I guess I'm still left wondering why we're making a subsidized, trophied event of creating Terrible People.
-
-
That's why I Ieft debate and then many years later blurted an attack on the very concept while cornered by students in a hallway.
-
I guess I'm not sure whether these replies should be taken as a defense or condemnation of the creation of the confused human superweapons that were, and are, pointed at you — admittedly, not an ambiguity I expected to be left with
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I can see a real purpose to advancing a formal space for good faith argumentation from a variety of axioms, personally held or otherwise, and secondarily elevating practiced charisma on those terms. But if it's just about arbitrary popular evil as an art, why?
-
Because Hell can not produce lawyers fast enough to satisfy demand so we have resorted to minting them here on Earth.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.