![]() Rather than finding reasons why you don't have to argue about it, how about hitting the books and creating a compelling argument with numerous references like the above article showing that it actually does work without cheats. Here is another one: Three Body Problem. When this was posted the arguments revolved around reasons why the points in the article don't need to be addressed, rather than actually addressing them. ![]() ![]() Here is one: Astronomy is a pseudoescience. When the RE here are presented with those articles we mainly just see some kind of argument about why they don't have to address it. There are plenty of platforms they can publish on. I want them to go to and conduct opposition research on their specific subject of interest and provide an equal or greater amount of evidence showing that the points in the articles are false. Tell them that I don't want a chatroom debate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |