Nato alliance experiencing brain death, says Macron

[Lord Thesaurian]

That wasn't my claim. I guess your MO in debate is make strawman arguments and hope that nobody reads your original post to see that.

Woops, wrong thread. You got me there. I was not paying attention.

In any case, your MO is to cast unfounded and often conspiratorial aspersions on things you don’t agree with while never actually justifying or evidencing your assertions. That much is plain to see. Within this particular thread, you responded to my post by basically saying “MAGA,” then accused me of making false claims while providing no evidence for your own. This isn’t a debate. A debate requires at least two participants, which would require you to put forth an argument based on points of fact backed up by sources.

[Heathen Hammer]

Woops, wrong thread. You got me there. I was not paying attention.

In any case, your MO is to cast unfounded and often conspiratorial aspersions on things you don’t agree with while never actually justifying or evidencing your assertions. That much is plain to see. Within this particular thread, you responded to my post by basically saying “MAGA,” then accused me of making false claims while providing no evidence for your own. This isn’t a debate. A debate requires at least two participants, which would require you to put forth an argument based on points of fact backed up by sources.

Nah, I explained why your argument is wrong by citing basic objective facts,l and all you did in reply is trite nonsensical ad hominems.
Let alone the fact that the "ORANGE MAN BAD" post that you made doesn't contain a list of citations either.

[PointOfViewGun]

Nah, I explained why your argument is wrong by citing basic objective facts,l and all you did in reply is trite nonsensical ad hominems.
Let alone the fact that the "ORANGE MAN BAD" post that you made doesn't contain a list of citations either.

Please don't confuse your own opinion with actual facts. It's often an insult to other people.

[Heathen Hammer]

more ad hominems

*Yawns* If you have a counter-argument to address what I said, feel free to post that. Without that, your personal attacks just sound desperate and weak.

[Lord Thesaurian]

*Yawns* If you have a counter-argument to address what I said, feel free to post that. Without that, your personal attacks just sound desperate and weak.

What claims did I make which you would like me to cite? What “objective facts” have you stated, and what are your sources?

[Heathen Hammer]

What claims did I make which you would like me to cite? What “objective facts” have you stated, and what are your sources?

The claims you made in post #89. You haven't even posted any evidence to your claims, making your nonsensical ad hominems for me pointing out that your post doesn't correspond to reality even more hypocritical.

[PointOfViewGun]

*Yawns* If you have a counter-argument to address what I said, feel free to post that. Without that, your personal attacks just sound desperate and weak.

The counter-argument is that I have not seen you utter any facts, hence, your arguments came across as your opinion rather than as facts. This was no ad hominems. Its not how ad hominems is defined. Basically, you illustrated how you confuse your opinion with facts once again.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The claims you made in post #89. You haven't even posted any evidence to your claims, making your nonsensical ad hominems for me pointing out that your post doesn't correspond to reality even more hypocritical.

You’re lying again.

I provided a reference article in post #89 discussing Trump’s unique willingness to damage US credibility among her allies and sow discord among NATO, thus weakening the alliance; not to mention Trump’s threats to withdraw from NATO entirely. This is something decades of Russian military posturing and espionage operations failed to accomplish.

The bit about Putin and the GRU “lying in the weeds” refers to the findings of US intelligence, the Republican-controlled Senate, and Trump’s DOJ that the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Trump, and continues to do so through 2020.

Now your turn:

Losers and failures like Hillary, Romney and McCain just constantly ranted about "Russian threat" because they needed some foreign boogeyman to scare public into supporting them with or explain why the public didn't vote for these losers

Citation needed, especially since the public did vote for Hillary Clinton by a net margin of nearly 3 million people.

I explained why your argument is wrong by citing basic objective facts

Citation needed.

Or, you can just admit you like spouting unfounded personal opinions, and move on.

[Heathen Hammer]

The counter-argument is that I have not seen you utter any facts, hence, your arguments came across as your opinion rather than as facts. This was no ad hominems. Its not how ad hominems is defined. Basically, you illustrated how you confuse your opinion with facts once again.

Anyone's post can be classified as an opinion. You need counter-arguments to prove your point, which you have not. Again, posting ad hominem attacks instead just shows how weak your stance is.

[PointOfViewGun]

Anyone's post can be classified as an opinion. You need counter-arguments to prove your point, which you have not. Again, posting ad hominem attacks instead just shows how weak your stance is.

Opinions are classified as opinions when they're not backed up by demonstrable information. That's what I saw in your posts. You're more than free to prove me wrong. However, given how you try to classify criticism of your stance as ad hominem attacks when they're objectively are not shows me that your arguments have no ground to stand on.