Okay, it is: "The article lists points that exactly put into question the guilty verdict in this case" vs "are supported by the arguments made by the prosecution in all instances of the appellate court"
Do you find the points raised in the article not compelling? Perhaps you could specifically address at least the point raised that the witness testimony was biased?
Still waiting for the specific lies.
The value in at least pointing out the lies is so that your claim of lies can begin to be supported - that we can see at least what you claim to be a lie. The article seems to be relatively expository. Not only would something have to be false, it would have to be knowingly so. Calling someone a liar, IMO is very significant. It should be therefore supported.
> Do you think that activists should just be able to gish-gallop everyone by forcing them to repeatedly argue the exact same points?
My opinion there is kinda immaterial. If we did go down that road, I'd have to ask you to precisely define most of those terms. Which seems like a tedious exercise, and again my 2 cents on that question seems immaterial. If you are perhaps implying I am an activist, I would not consider myself as such. I do try to practice skepticism. I also sincerely and greatly value _truth_.
So, perhaps we can start with what you claim is a lie?
Do you find the points raised in the article not compelling? Perhaps you could specifically address at least the point raised that the witness testimony was biased?
Still waiting for the specific lies.
The value in at least pointing out the lies is so that your claim of lies can begin to be supported - that we can see at least what you claim to be a lie. The article seems to be relatively expository. Not only would something have to be false, it would have to be knowingly so. Calling someone a liar, IMO is very significant. It should be therefore supported.
> Do you think that activists should just be able to gish-gallop everyone by forcing them to repeatedly argue the exact same points?
My opinion there is kinda immaterial. If we did go down that road, I'd have to ask you to precisely define most of those terms. Which seems like a tedious exercise, and again my 2 cents on that question seems immaterial. If you are perhaps implying I am an activist, I would not consider myself as such. I do try to practice skepticism. I also sincerely and greatly value _truth_.
So, perhaps we can start with what you claim is a lie?