>Why do you think I presented those questions side by side? Perhaps because cowardice prevented you from stating your point clearly, so instead you resorted to

>Why do you think I presented those questions side by side? Perhaps because cowardice prevented you from stating your point clearly, so instead you resorted to vague implications in the form of a question. A fine tactic which gives the coward a plausible deniability defense when their bullshit is called out: I didn't say that, you said that. Coupled with other similar techniques, e.g.: * You know what I mean * Questions that have actual answers, but are asked rhetorically to make an implication: How many cats are eaten alive each year by immigrants? * Both-sidesing/false balance (giving equal weight to contradicting points of view, regardless of what the reality has to say) * Ambiguous implication that can be taken in many ways, depending on how the asker defines the terms: Do you really think the immigrants are helping the economy? * Non-sequiturs and non-answers * False dichotomies * Etc ...this gives the coward a superpower to start a heated discussion, where the coward never actually says anything directly. Instead, the opponents exert an enormous effort to debunk each leaf on the tree of possible interpretations of the coward's incomplete thought, effectively doing the thinking for the coward in a futile attempt to nail down what point the coward intended to make. (There is no such clear point, other than I am right and you are wrong). By the time it becomes clear that no possible interpretation is supported by reality, the coward silently leaves the discussion, and says the same exact things elsewhere, feeling empowered by having made others frustrated. That frustration counts as a victory in an argument in coward's view, with the assumption that it comes from inability to counter the coward's (unstated, vague, implied) points. In reality, it's infuriating to have to be made guessing what the other person wants to say, doubly so when they are the one forcing to play that game, which, miraculously, you always seem to lose, because the outcome is invariably "that's not quite what I'm saying" (and what the coward is saying is never directly stated by the coward). At the same time, this protects the coward from being riduculed for any of the views they're promulgating in the discussion. This is why the coward never states the views directly, and instead e.g. "presents questions side by side". If the coward were to say outright "Unlike CD players, there's actually no clear way to say whether vaccines work or not", the coward would be laughed out of the room, and they know it — which is why the resort to implications and rhetorical questions about coward's motivation. I hope this fully answers the question asked.