>>14257705logical fallacies are considered such not because they're false (in many cases they're completely true), but because they don't stand on their own as arguments. ultimately an argument isn't worth shit unless it can be backed up with some kind of evidence or convincing analysis.
to make things, clear, I DO understand the point you're making. it essentially boils down to
>needing to dumb down your opponents argument in order to counter it is actually good, because it means that you understand it on a "deeper" level that no one else doeswhich, to me, sounds like the biggest brainlet cope there ever was.
I should also make it clear that your insults do not add weight to your arguments. they only make you sound arrogant in a uniquely american way
