/vt/ - Virtual Youtubers

>>1536744


This is a basic principle of argumentative ethics anon. If you and someone else are talking about something, and you do not agree what they are saying, then you make it clear: what kind of evidence *would* convince you?

You make references to 'definitions and criteria', what are those? Define your terms. What is *your* definition of 'vtuber' - not mine, *yours* - and then the conversation over the subject in question can start moving towards a conclusion.

If one does not do that, then that would make it seem like one is arguing in bad faith! That any calls for 'proof' would be mere sophistry for advantage, because none would ever be accepted in the first place, no matter how great. That there is no principle underlaying one's argument, merely arranging whatever words are most convenient in that moment for sectarian partisanship.

That's not what you are trying to do though, right anon?