/lit/ - Literature

>>7093256
1. You are conflating 2 points from 2 people.
2. The point was not based on an unnamed person,
you simply did not like the source.
3. Your counterarguments rest on unbeatable tautologies, there is never an answer, because no source is good enough.
4. You use unnecessary rhetoric.
5. You are defending someone who is already generally believed to be a genocidal maniac, and considering know sources need to be of an indefinably high quality, we may as well just go with our gut feeling considering the only thing both sides except for me has said has been entirely rhetorical.

Paralysis.

Expected response:
1. Parts of my posts which do not take in to account the point of the whole post are posted.
2a. Ad Hominem.
2b. "Ad Hominem is justified if the intelligence of the opponent is important to the argument".
3. "BTFO"