Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kreynolds" data-source="post: 503030" data-attributes="member: 2829">The everburning torch is invalid as evidence because it is the very thing being disputed. For you to offer it as such, we might as well just stoop to &quot;Yes, it is!&quot;, &quot;No, it isn't!&quot;, &quot;Yes, it is!&quot;, &quot;No, it isn't!&quot;. Know what I mean? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />The very discussion is about the torch itself. A thing can only be evidence if it proves your case about the torch, but simply claiming the torch as your evidence, when its the very thing in question, only brings us to one result (see above).I know you're speaking about many people here, but I hope you don't feel like I'm attacking you. That certainly is not my intention. I promise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kreynolds, post: 503030, member: 2829"] The everburning torch is invalid as evidence because it is the very thing being disputed. For you to offer it as such, we might as well just stoop to "Yes, it is!", "No, it isn't!", "Yes, it is!", "No, it isn't!". Know what I mean? :cool: The very discussion is about the torch itself. A thing can only be evidence if it proves your case about the torch, but simply claiming the torch as your evidence, when its the very thing in question, only brings us to one result (see above). I know you're speaking about many people here, but I hope you don't feel like I'm attacking you. That certainly is not my intention. I promise. [/QUOTE]

Verification